People v. Stevens

Citation59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196,41 Cal.4th 182,158 P.3d 763
Decision Date04 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. S034704.,S034704.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles STEVENS, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard I. Targow, Sebastopol, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias, Dane R. Gillette and Seth K. Schalit, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CORRIGAN, J.

A jury convicted Charles Stevens of four first degree murders and six attempted murders.1 A lying-in-wait special circumstance was found true as to one murder.2 A special circumstance allegation of multiple murder, and personal firearm use allegations as to all counts, were also found true.3 The jury set the punishment at death.

The case is before us on defendant's automatic appeal.4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Guilt Phase

1. Prosecution Evidence

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of proof only as to one murder, one attempted murder, and the lying-in-wait special circumstance. Thus, we discuss the facts in summary, except as necessary. Between April 3 and July 27, 1989, defendant engaged in a series of random attacks, by shooting at people on or near Interstate 580 in Oakland. All but one of the victims were in cars when attacked. Defendant succeeded in killing Leslie Ann Noyer, Lori Anne Rochon, Laquann Sloan, and Raymond August. He attempted to kill Karen Alice Anderson, Janell Lee, Julia Peters, Paul Fenn, Upendra de Silva, and Rodney Stokes. Defendant was charged alone as to all the offenses, except Noyer's murder. As to this murder, Richard Clark was tried as a codefendant. The jury deadlocked on the murder charge against Clark, and the trial court declared a mistrial.

Defendant was apprehended near the scene of his final murder. On July 27, at 1:15 a.m., Rodney Stokes was driving home from work at 45 miles per hour on Interstate 580. Defendant, driving a white Mazda, pulled up alongside him and both vehicles slowed down. Stokes lowered his passenger window, and looked over to see if he knew the driver. Defendant motioned as though trying to get Stokes's attention, and smiled at him. Stokes had never seen defendant before, but thought perhaps he had a passenger who "was a friend from work getting a ride and trying to slow me down for whatever reasons." Stokes had often seen coworkers on the freeway. Just as Stokes realized there was no passenger, defendant shot at him.

Stokes lay down on the seat and turned off his headlights, losing control of the vehicle briefly. At this point he was traveling approximately 30 miles per hour. When Stokes regained control and looked up, the Mazda was in front of him. Defendant "was sitting there waiting, basically, still coasting in front of me and then [defendant] fired" twice more. Stokes was approximately three-quarters of a mile away from the 35th Avenue overpass. Defendant pulled away, and Stokes began flicking his lights on and off to attract police attention. He also sped up to catch defendant.

As he drove, Stokes saw defendant slow down and pull alongside Raymond August's car. They were the only two vehicles in front of him on the road. Stokes testified defendant "g[o]t the attention of the other driver" because both sets of brake lights came on. Stokes lost sight of the cars for a brief moment, which he characterized as "the snap of a finger." After rounding a slight turn, Stokes saw the cars again, and heard at least two gunshots. Defendant rapidly drove to the 35th Avenue off-ramp, left the freeway, and drove onto another on-ramp that entered the freeway going the opposite direction.

Stokes drove to August's car, which had crashed into a pillar under the 35th Avenue overpass. He saw August and "[a]n awful lot of blood." He looked across the freeway, saw the Mazda parked on the shoulder of the on-ramp, and called 911.

When the first police officer arrived, defendant was still parked on the on-ramp, looking "at the scene underneath the freeway." When the officer ordered him out of the vehicle, defendant appeared startled, and began to drive away. He then got out of the car with his hands in the air, walked backwards, and fled on foot toward a retaining wall. The officer grabbed defendant at the wall. As he did so, the officer heard a heavy metallic object hit the ground; it was a loaded .357 magnum Desert Eagle semiautomatic pistol. Defendant was carrying a loaded magazine and a loose bullet. Stokes subsequently arrived and identified defendant.

Defendant told police he had possessed the weapon for the last three to four months, since "[a]bout ... March." Ballistics evidence indicated defendant's weapon was either a match to or consistent with the gun used in all of the crimes except for the attempted murder of Stokes. The piece of lead slug recovered from Stokes' vehicle was insufficient to make any comparison.

A search of defendant's room revealed a box and an operator's manual for the weapon, a canvas gun case, gun cleaning equipment, a .357 magnum cartridge and magazine, trays of bullets, and practice targets. He also had a collection of Oakland newspapers containing articles about the shootings, and an envelope with handwritten references to what appeared to be various Penal and Vehicle Code sections including those regarding murder, assault, vehicle theft, and weapons offenses.5 Defendant's palm print was found on victim Noyer's vehicle.

During an unrecorded interview, police asked defendant what type of person would commit random shootings on a freeway. He replied the "only reason would be mental, or loneliness, some lonely mother fucker." When asked how such a person would be caught, he said, "The guy would get caught if somebody told on him or if he pulled over like I did."

2. Defense Evidence

Defendant presented evidence only as to the murder of 16-year-old Laquann Sloan, a conviction not challenged on appeal. Sloan was shot in the head as he walked down the street. Three witnesses testified about events before and after the shooting, but none witnessed the shooting itself.

Codefendant Clark testified regarding the Noyer and Rochon murders. Clark had given police various accounts of the Noyer murder. In his last statement, he claimed he had shot Noyer under duress because defendant threatened to shoot him. At trial, Clark denied being present at the murder scene, and said he made up the story using details from the police.

As to the Rochon murder, Clark testified that early on the morning of July 6, he and defendant were in a stolen car. As defendant drove, he started rocking back and forth, and said in an urgent tone, "`Man, I got to shoot somebody.'" Defendant pulled alongside a car, but Clark asked why he was going to shoot this person. Defendant said, "Okay. I'm not going to shoot this guy. I'll shoot somebody white." Defendant subsequently pulled next to Lori Rochon's car, and rolled down his side window, telling Clark he thought Rochon was a "white dude," and fired at her. Clark's sister testified that in July 1989, Clark asked her to tell him when the news came on because defendant had shot someone on the freeway. The news report stated that the woman's name was "Lori," and she was shot on Interstate 580. When Clark saw a July 18 article about the assaults on Fenn, Peters, and de Silva, he called defendant and asked if he had done the shooting. Defendant said, "Man, don't say that over the phone.'"

b. Penalty Phase

1. Prosecution evidence

The parties stipulated that defendant was convicted in 1989 of three counts of felony auto theft. (Former Veh.Code, § 10851.)

Randall Shumpert described an incident in June 1987. At 10:00 p.m., defendant and a passenger drove by the BART station where Shumpert was standing. The passenger yelled something at Shumpert, and angry words were exchanged. Defendant drove off, but returned a few minutes later with his headlights off. Defendant leaned from the car window, shot at Shumpert, and drove away.

On November 30, 1988, Sheriffs Deputy William Borland and Sergeant Steve Wilson responded to a disturbance in the county jail mess hall. Defendant threw a carton of milk at Wilson, swore, and urged other inmates to throw objects at the officers. Defendant picked up his metal tray as though to throw that, but complied when ordered to put it down.

On March 18, 1993 Sheriffs Deputy Timothy Durbin was transporting defendant from jail to court during the guilt phase of this case. He heard defendant tell another inmate in hushed tones, "You know that fuckin' Clark is fucking me over. He snitched me off five times now. If I get the chance, I'm going to do him.... I'm going to kill that mother fucker, even if I did make him do some of that shit, he's trying to fuck me over."

Eight witnesses provided victim impact testimony regarding the accomplishments of their loved ones, and the effect of the murders on their own lives.

2. Defense evidence

Psychiatrist Harry Kormos testified about defendant's childhood and the results of psychological testing. Dr. Kormos met with defendant approximately 10 times for three hours each over a period of four to five months. He concluded defendant had an unspecified personality disorder with schizoid and borderline personality traits. Dr. Kormos had diagnosed several dozen people with such a disorder, but could not recall any of them committing murder. Although defendant manifested this disorder, he suffered from no mental illness. Physical and psychological testing revealed no organic brain illness, tumors, or malformations. Defendant's mother stopped drinking about five years before defendant was born, and defendant did not have fetal alcohol syndrome. Defendant's intelligence quotient of 80 to 90 revealed below-average intelligence, but he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
377 cases
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...as the credibility of the prosecutor who exercised those strikes." ( Ayala , supra , 135 S.Ct. at p. 2201 ; see People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 198, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.) Thus, "[w]hen the trial court makes a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the [proffered] reas......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...credibility of the prosecutor who exercised those strikes." ( Ayala , supra , 135 S.Ct. at p. 2201 ; see People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 198, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.) Thus, "[w]hen the trial court makes a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the [proffered] reasons, th......
  • People v. Delgado
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2017
    ...P.3d 754 (Streeter ); People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1310, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 190 P.3d 616 ; People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 203-204, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763 ; Nakahara , supra , 30 Cal.4th at p. 721, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190 ; People v. Gutierrez (2002......
  • People v. Chandler, A114037 (Cal. App. 2/18/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2009
    ... ... matters." And the motion for acquittal under section 1118.1 qualifies as an issue of law. (See People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 200.) ...         Only the due diligence issue may conceivably escape the net, but because, as already shown, the evidence was not in conflict, it amounts to a virtual question of law. ( People v. Smith , supra, 30 Cal.4th 581, 612; People v. Cromer, supra, 24 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT