People v. Turner

Decision Date01 November 2004
Docket NumberNo. S009038.,S009038.
Citation20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182,34 Cal.4th 406,99 P.3d 505
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Dean TURNER, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert M. Sanger, Santa Barbara, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, Sara Gros-Cloren and Douglas C. S. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BROWN, J.

Defendant Richard Dean Turner appeals from his sentence of death under the 1978 death penalty law imposed on retrial after this court reversed the original judgment of death in People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669 (Turner I).

In Turner I, a jury had convicted defendant of the first degree murders of Merle and Freda Claxton (Pen.Code, § 187),1 found true the "[s]pecial circumstance allegations that the murders were committed during [the] commission of [a] burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and that [defendant] was convicted of more than one offense of murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3))," and set the penalty at death. (Turner I, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 308,208 Cal.Rptr. 196,690 P.2d 669.) We reversed the original judgment of death and set aside the special circumstance findings because the trial court failed to instruct on intent to kill as an element of the felony-murder and multiple-murder special circumstances. (See Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862, overruled by People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306.) We, however, affirmed in all other respects.

Thereafter, defendant entered into a plea agreement over the objection of the prosecution. Under the agreement, defendant admitted that he intended to kill Merle and Freda Claxton and, in return, the trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole. The People filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking to vacate the sentence. The Court of Appeal granted the petition and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order sentencing defendant to life without the possibility of parole and ordering the court to set the matter for trial. We denied defendant's petition for review.

On retrial, the prosecution elected to proceed solely on the special circumstance allegation that defendant was convicted of more than one offense of murder with the specific intent to kill one or both of the victims. The jury found true the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation. Following the penalty phase, it returned a verdict of life without the possibility of parole as to the first degree murder of Merle Claxton and a verdict of death as to the first degree murder of Freda Claxton. The trial court then denied defendant's motion to modify the sentence. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) Defendant's appeal is automatic, and we affirm his sentence of death.

I. FACTS
A. Special Circumstance Phase

The evidence on the retrial of the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation largely paralleled the evidence introduced at defendant's first trial and summarized in Turner I. Defendant and William Souza were roommates at a halfway house in Stockton. After being asked to leave the halfway house, defendant and Souza traveled to the Victorville/Apple Valley area to stay with defendant's father. Upon arriving, defendant and Souza separated for a short time. During the separation, defendant stole some guns from his father. As a result, defendant and Souza could not stay with defendant's father and stayed, instead, in an abandoned shack.

After a few days, defendant and Souza went to some hot springs in the Deep Creek area and swam and partied with some other people. While at the hot springs, defendant and Souza drank multiple beers and smoked marijuana and "shermans"—cigarettes soaked in phencyclidine (PCP). They left the hot springs around 7:00 p.m. An intoxicated defendant drove Souza on a motorcycle but the motorcycle broke down. After defendant was unable to fix the motorcycle, defendant and Souza abandoned it and walked back to the shack. During the walk, defendant and Souza decided to burglarize a house for food. They eventually settled on the Claxtons' house because it was isolated and because it looked as if nobody was home.

As they approached the Claxtons' house, Souza told defendant to hide behind a bush. Defendant had a .22 rifle with him. Souza knocked on the door. When the lights came on and a dog barked, Souza became frightened and ran. He ran past defendant who looked "crazy," with his eyes bulging. Souza then heard three gunshots and returned to the house just in time to see defendant enter the house through a broken window. When Souza entered the house, the Claxtons' dog attacked him. He called for defendant's help, and defendant shot the dog. Souza then noticed the bodies of the Claxtons.

Defendant told Souza to "get the stuff [and] get the hell out of here." Souza complied because defendant pointed a gun at him and looked like he was "tripping" on PCP. Defendant and Souza began ransacking the house for items to sell and stuffed these items into the Claxtons' two cars.

Defendant and Souza each drove a car filled with items from the Claxtons' house to an isolated area by an abandoned chicken ranch. They left the car radios on as they tried to hide the items in the surrounding bushes. A nearby resident, however, saw defendant and Souza, and called the police. When defendant and Souza saw a police car approaching, they fled. The police discovered the two abandoned cars with stolen property in, on, and around the cars. The police also discovered four firearms, including the murder weapon.

After determining that the cars belonged to the Claxtons, the police attempted to locate them. The police eventually discovered the bodies of Merle and Freda Claxton and their dog at the Claxtons' house. An autopsy revealed that Merle Claxton had suffered two gunshot wounds—one in the chest and one in the face. The gunshot wound to the chest was probably the fatal wound. He also had abrasions and lacerations on his cheek and chest. The autopsy also revealed that Freda Claxton had died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

The police arrested defendant and Souza the next day by tracking their footprints from the location of the Claxtons' abandoned cars. At the time of his arrest, defendant was wearing Merle Claxton's hat.

At trial, a prosecution expert testified on the effects of PCP. He opined that it was highly unlikely that defendant and Souza could have committed the alleged acts, including the murders, burglaries, and escape attempt, if they were still under the influence of PCP.

In his defense, defendant presented only one witness—Dr. Rex Conrad, a psychologist. Dr. Conrad testified that defendant suffered from "schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic." During the direct examination, he also testified that defendant had an "impaired intent to kill." Dr. Conrad stated, "I think that he intended to kill these people," but believed that defendant "could not appreciate the gravity of the act." Dr. Conrad further testified that defendant told him that he killed the Claxtons because they were potential witnesses and he did not want to go back to prison.

B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution

Johnny Faye Lees testified that in 1976 defendant got in her car and pointed a gun at her. According to Lees, defendant told her to drive but she refused. Defendant then took her money. Although defendant expressed some concern that she might identify him, he left without touching her.

Dora Liberty testified that in 1976 defendant rang her doorbell at 6:00 a.m. When she opened the door, defendant pointed a gun at her. According to Liberty, she slammed the door shut and called the police, and defendant left after banging on the door.

Kenneth Wayne Knobbs testified that he shared a jail cell with defendant and several other inmates in 1979. After another inmate forced Knobbs to orally copulate him, defendant forced Knobbs to have sex with him. Defendant first tried to have anal intercourse with Knobbs and later forced Knobbs to orally copulate him.

2. Defense

Defendant's mother, Bonnie Alice Ridgeway, testified that defendant was the third youngest of eight children, and that the family was poor. According to his mother, defendant had a skin problem, and everybody shunned him, including his brothers and sisters. She further testified that defendant's father would beat her in defendant's presence and used a belt or horsewhip to discipline defendant and the other children. She also acknowledged that she used a belt to discipline defendant. On one occasion, defendant's father placed defendant's brother, Jim, on a hot stove and burned him badly. Defendant's mother divorced defendant's father when she learned that he had sexually molested their oldest daughter and that one of the children had seen him trying to have sex with the dog. When she had some financial problems, defendant, along with some of his siblings, went to live with their father.

Kathy, defendant's sister, testified that she and defendant were the "black sheep" of the family. According to Kathy, defendant had a skin problem and, as a result, had few friends. At the age of three, she was accidentally shot in the head by her brother Clyde in the presence of defendant. She also testified that their father used to beat the children, including her and defendant, with a belt until they cried. Her father also sexually molested her when she was five and raped her when she was 16. According to Kathy, she never told defendant about the rape but later discovered that he was awake when it happened.

Defendant's father, Ray Turner, testified that defendant was a problem child who always got into trouble and was difficult to raise....

To continue reading

Request your trial
302 cases
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 28, 2020
    ...jury in this case is evidence relevant to his credibility as a witness in this competency trial. (Cf. People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 430, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505 [where "defendant's trial attorneys were percipient witnesses during the competency hearing," the prosecutor was......
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 1, 2016
    ...’ " (People v. Boyette , supra , 29 Cal.4th at pp. 455–456, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391 ; see People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 419–420, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505.) In this case, however, the comment came from the trial judge, and it stands to reason that jurors would assig......
  • Jurado v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • September 17, 2018
    ...applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal. (People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 417, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505; People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 83 P.3d 480; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 ......
  • People v. Capistrano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 4, 2014
    ...norms generally or, specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ( People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 439–440, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505 ; People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 403–404, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) Because defendant fails to ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Turner, 13 Cal. App. 5th 397, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449 (1st Dist. 2017)—Ch. 4-B, §3.8; Ch. 5-A, §2.2.3(1)(a)[1] People v. Turner, 34 Cal. 4th 406, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182, 99 P.3d 505 (2004)—Ch. 4-C, §2.5.2(2)(c)[4] People v. Turner, 8 Cal. 4th 137, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 762, 878 P.2d 521 (1......
  • Attorney conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...likelihood that the jury would understand the remarks as an assertion that counsel sought to deceive the jury. People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 406, 429, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182. ATTORNEY CONDUCT 20-11 Attorney Conduct §20:50 For remarks made gratuitously during the presentation of evidence......
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...asked the jury to believe the prosecution’s version of the events as shown by the evidence and was not improper. People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 406, 433, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182. The prosecutor committed misconduct when he vouched for the credibility of the court-appointed experts by stat......
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...3d 891. Generally, failure to object to the court’s responses to jury questions forfeits the issue on appeal. People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 406, 437, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182. Except in a criminal trial, a defendant’s failure to object to an inaccurate instruction does not forfeit the rig......
  • 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