People v. Superior Court

Decision Date21 May 2007
Docket NumberNo. S130489.,S130489.
Citation157 P.3d 1017,58 Cal.Rptr.3d 421,41 Cal.4th 1
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Ronald Decker, Real Party in Interest.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Lael R. Rubin, Head Deputy District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran and Matthew G. Monforton, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner;

No appearance for Respondent.

Roger J. Rosen, Los Angeles, and Diane E. Berley, Woodland Hills, for Real Party in Interest.

BAXTER, J.

Defendant and real party in interest Ronald Decker has been charged with the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of his sister, Donna Decker, and her friend, Hermine Riley Bafiera. (Pen.Code, § 664, subd. (a).) According to the evidence offered at the preliminary hearing, Decker did not want to kill these women himself—as he explained, "he would be the prime suspect" and "would probably make a mistake somehow or another"—so he sought the services of a hired assassin.

Decker located such a person (or thought he did). He furnished the hired assassin with a description of his sister, her home, her car, and her workplace, as well as specific information concerning her daily habits. He also advised the assassin to kill Hermine if necessary to avoid leaving a witness behind. Decker and the hired assassin agreed on the means to commit the murder, the method of payment, and the price. The parties also agreed that Decker would pay $5,000 in cash as a downpayment. Before Decker handed over the money, the assassin asked whether Decker was "sure" he wanted to go through with the murders. Decker replied, "I am absolutely, positively, 100 percent sure, that I want to go through with it. I've never been so sure of anything in my entire life." All of these conversations were recorded and videotaped because, unknown to Decker, he was talking with an undercover police detective posing as a hired assassin.

Decker does not dispute that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to hold him to answer to the charge of solicitation of the murder of Donna and Hermine but argues that this evidence was insufficient to support a charge of their attempted murder. The magistrate and the trial court, believing themselves bound by People v. Adami (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 452, 111 Cal.Rptr. 544 (Adami), reluctantly agreed with Decker and dismissed the attempted murder charges. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Adami and issued a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to reinstate the dismissed counts. We granted review to address the conflict and now affirm.

Background

Ronald Decker was charged by felony complaint with the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of his sister, Donna Decker, and her friend, Hermine Riley Bafiera; the solicitation of Detective Wayne Holston to commit these murders; and the solicitation of Russell Wafer to murder Donna Decker. The undisputed evidence presented at the preliminary hearing revealed the following:

On August 20, 2003, Ronald Decker (identifying himself only as "Ron") placed a telephone call to Russell Wafer, a gunsmith at Lock, Stock and Barrel in Temple City (Los Angeles County). Decker said he was looking for someone to do some "work" for him and arranged to meet privately with Wafer the following week. During that meeting, Decker explained that he had been in contact with Soldier of Fortune magazine, had done some research, and came up with Wafer's name as a possible "contractor" for a local "job""basically it was that he wanted someone taken care of." Decker added that he could not kill the victim himself because he would be a prime suspect. Wafer advised that while he could not handle the job, his friend "John" from Detroit might be interested. After Decker offered to pay the killer $35,000 and an additional $3,000 to Wafer as a finder's fee, Wafer said he would try to contact John. He instructed Decker to call him back the following week.

In reality, however, Wafer did not know a "John" in Detroit who would be interested in a contract murder. Wafer instead called the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, spoke to Detective Wayne Holston, and agreed to assist in a sting operation. When Decker called Wafer on September 2, Wafer claimed he had been in contact with "John," who was coming to town shortly. Wafer asked Decker for his phone number and promised to arrange a meeting with "John." Based on the physical description Wafer had provided and on the phone number Decker had supplied, Holston located a photograph of Decker. Wafer immediately recognized Decker as "Ron," the man he had met the previous week. At Holston's request, Wafer arranged a meeting with Decker for the evening of September 5 at a golf course parking lot in Arcadia. Holston accompanied Wafer to the meeting and was introduced as "John" from Detroit. Holston was wearing a "wire," and the encounter was both videotaped and recorded.

After Wafer left the two men alone, Decker explained that a "lady" owed him a lot of money and that the only way for him to get it back was "to take her out." Decker subsequently identified the target as his sister, Donna Decker, and provided descriptions of her person, her mode of dress, her residence, her office, her car, and her daily habits. Decker offered Holston $25,000 to perform the execution, with a $10,000 bonus if it were a "nice, neat, clean job." Decker reiterated that he could not do it himself, as "he would be the prime suspect," and might "slip up" somewhere. When Decker proposed that Holston kill Donna in an automobile accident, Holston warned him that she might survive such an accident. Decker agreed that this might not be the best method, since he wanted her "totally expired," and said he appreciated Holston's advice: "I want a professional—someone that's gonna do the job, and do it right—and do it right." When Holston then proposed killing Donna during a staged robbery or carjacking, Decker said that would be "great" and urged Holston to "shoot her in the heart and head both, just to make sure." Decker added that Donna spent a lot of time with her friend and coworker, Hermine Riley Bafiera, and that Holston might need to "take out" Hermine as well to avoid having a witness. Decker did not care for Hermine, either.

When Holston said he could complete the job within a week, Decker replied, "Marvelous.... The sooner the better." Holston also asked for some money up front, and Decker said he could supply him with $5,000 in cash as a downpayment in a couple of days "so you can start right away." The downpayment was also designed to prove Decker's sincerity, since "once this goes into effect—she's gonna be killed." Decker could barely contain his eagerness: "Well that's what I want[.] I don't want go to the hospital then come home. I want absolutely positively expired. Totally expired."

Decker and Holston met again at the golf course on September 7. This meeting was also videotaped and recorded. Decker gave Holston $5,000 in cash, wrapped in two plastic bundles. He reiterated that Holston, after Donna had been murdered, should use a pay phone to leave him a voicemail message—Holston was to say that "the paint job has been completed"— and that Holston would get the rest of the money about a month later. Decker also reiterated that "if Hermine is in the car, with her, you cannot, I understand if I were in your business, I would never leave a witness. You have to take her out too. Whoever's with her you gotta take the other person out too. But don't charge me double."

Holston told Decker that he had already performed some intelligence work, that he was "convinced" he would see the victim the next day, and that he could get this "job" done quickly—eliciting another "marvelous" from Decker—and explained that "once I leave here, it's done. So, you sure you want to go through with it?" Decker replied, "I am absolutely, positively 100 percent sure, that I want to go through with it. I've never been so sure of anything in my entire life.... [¶][D]o it very fast ... as fast as you can." At the end of the conversation, Decker seemed "very pleased" and thanked Holston and Wafer. A short time after Holston and Wafer drove off, Decker was arrested.

Discussion

[l-i] The superior court's dismissal of the attempted murder charges, which was based on undisputed facts, constitutes a legal conclusion subject to independent review on appeal. (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300, 179 Cal.Rptr. 43, 637 P.2d 279.) The question for us is whether "it appears from the preliminary examination that a public offense has been committed, 'and there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof.... `"Sufficient cause" ... means such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. [Citation.] —'" (Williams v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1144, 1147, 80 Cal.Rptr. 747, 458 P.2d 987.) "[E]vidence which will justify prosecution under the above test need not be sufficient to support a conviction." (Ibid.)

Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. (Pen.Code, § 21a; People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176.) The uncontradicted evidence that Decker harbored the specific intent to kill his sister (and, if necessary, her friend Hermine) was overwhelming. Decker expressed to both Wafer and Holston his desire to have Donna killed. He researched how to find a hired assassin. He spent months accumulating cash in small denominations to provide the hired assassin with a downpayment and had also worked out a method by which to pay the balance. He knew the layout of his sister's condominium and how one might enter it surreptitiously. He had tested the level of surveillance in the vicinity of her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
189 cases
  • Delatorre v. Haws, 2: 09 - cv - 1974 - TJB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 17, 2011
    ......v. . BRIAN HAWS, Respondent. . 2: 09 - cv - 1974 - TJB . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA . DATED: June 17, 2011 ORDER ... (Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 285-286 [113 L.Ed.2d 302, 315]; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 166, disapproved on other grounds in Creutz v. Superior Court ......
  • People v. Lopez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2020
    ... 46 Cal.App.5th 505 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Pedro LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant. F076295 Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. Filed March 12, 2020 Benjamin Owens, El Cerrito, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and ...Watkins (2012) 55 Cal.4th 999, 1021, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 290 P.3d 364, quoting People v. Superior Court ( Decker ) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 8, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 157 P.3d 1017 ( Decker ).) Therefore, attempted robbery requires the specific intent ......
  • People v. Weddington
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 2016
    ... 246 Cal.App.4th 468 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 799 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Travion WEDDINGTON et al., Defendants and Appellants. B256361 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. Filed April 13, 2016 John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and ...Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1192, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234, 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Superior Court ( Decker ) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 8, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 157 P.3d 1017 ( Decker ).) Our Supreme Court has "recognized that ‘[w]henever the ......
  • People v. Hajek
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 5, 2014
    ...acts' " standard applies to evidence establishing the overt acts for purposes of attempt. ( People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 8, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 157 P.3d 1017 ["[W]e have long recognized that ‘[w]henever the design of a person to commit crime is clearly shown, sligh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 28.02 COMPARISON OF SOLICITATION TO OTHER INCHOATE OFFENSES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 28 Solicitation
    • Invalid date
    ...(a solicitation does not constitute an attempt unless the solicitation urges immediate commission of a crime).[36] . People v. Decker, 157 P.3d 1017, 1022 (Cal. 2007); Stokes v. State, 46 So. 627, 629 (Miss. 1908).[37] . People v. York, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1499, 1506 (Ct. App. 1998).[38] . E.g......
  • § 28.02 Comparison of Solicitation to Other Inchoate Offenses
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 28 Solicitation
    • Invalid date
    ...(a solicitation does not constitute an attempt unless the solicitation urges immediate commission of a crime).[34] People v. Decker, 157 P.3d 1017, 1022 (Cal. 2007); Stokes v. State, 46 So. 627, 629 (Miss. 1908).[35] People v. York, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1499, 1506 (1998).[36] E.g., People v. De......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...De Bettencourt v. State, 428 A.2d 479 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981), 487 Decina, People v., 138 N.E.2d 799 (N.Y. 1956), 93 Decker, People v., 157 P.3d 1017 (Cal. 2007), 398 Deer, State v., 287 P.3d 539 (Wash. 2012), 91 Delano, United States v., 55 F.3d 720 (2d Cir. 1995), 529 Delgado, People v.......

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