People v. Ward

Decision Date30 June 2005
Docket NumberNo. S019697.,S019697.
Citation30 Cal.Rptr.3d 464,114 P.3d 717,36 Cal.4th 186
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carmen Lee WARD, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Franklin Howell, Sacramento, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey, Sharlene A. Honnaka and Kenneth N. Sokoler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certiorari Denied March 27, 2006. See 126 S.Ct. 1625.

BROWN, J.

Defendant Carmen Lee Ward was charged in a single information with the first degree murders of Ronald Stumpf and David Adkins (Pen.Code, § 187, subd. (a); all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and the attempted murder of Kenneth Shy (§§ 187, 664). The information further alleged a multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and enhancements for the infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12922.7) and firearm use (§ 12022.5). After the trial court granted defendant's motion to sever the murder charges, a jury convicted him of the second degree murder of Stumpf and found the firearm use allegation to be true. A second jury then convicted him of the first degree murder of Adkins and the attempted murder of Shy and returned true findings on the enhancement allegations.1 After a separate proceeding, the jury found true the special circumstance that defendant had been previously convicted of murder in the second degree. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2).) Following the penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death.

Following the verdict, the trial court denied defendant's motion for a new trial and his automatic motion for modification of the verdict. The court then sentenced defendant to (1) 15 years to life for the second degree murder of Stumpf plus two consecutive years for the firearm enhancement, (2) death for the first degree murder of Adkins plus two consecutive years for the firearm enhancement, and (3) life with the possibility of parole for the attempted murder of Shy plus two consecutive years for the firearm enhancement and three consecutive years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court stayed the sentences for the murder of Stumpf, the attempted murder of Shy, and the enhancements pending appeal, with the stays becoming permanent upon execution of the death sentence.

This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239.) We find no reversible error as to guilt or penalty and affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase
1. Murder of Ronald Stumpf

In the late evening of October 3, 1987, Ronald Stumpf told his wife he was going out to play pool. Driving his 1972 Toyota down Long Beach Boulevard about 30 minutes later, he spotted George Springer, an acquaintance who had previously assisted him in buying rock cocaine. Springer approached Stumpf, and Stumpf asked where he could "go score." With Springer in the passenger seat giving directions, Stumpf drove to Norton Avenue, where they saw defendant—with whom Springer had previous drug dealings—standing on the sidewalk with another person.

They pulled up to defendant, and defendant, standing on the passenger side, asked what they wanted. Springer indicated they needed a $20 piece of cocaine and defendant handed a rock to Stumpf, who was holding money in his hand. According to Springer, Stumpf passed it back to defendant because the rock was too small. Perceiving Stumpf had broken a piece of the rock, defendant said something like, "You broke my shit." He then pulled a gun, leaned in the passenger side, and fired several times from close range at Stumpf's chest. Springer testified he crouched down and his ears began to ring as smoke and fire came from the gun. When the shooting stopped, he saw Stumpf's upper body covered with blood.

Because Stumpf had left the engine running and the car in gear when they had first approached defendant, the vehicle began to move along Norton Street. Springer attempted to gain control and managed to steer the car toward a used car lot, where it jumped the curb and hit a metal pipe. Springer got out and ran home. He did not call the police and lied to his wife when she saw blood on him. The next day, he went to church and spoke with an old friend, Reverend Tinson, about what had happened. Tinson advised him to go to the police, which he eventually did. Initially, however, Springer did not identify defendant for fear of reprisal. Several months later, he also lied when shown defendant's photograph, saying he did not recognize anyone. Only when threatened with incarceration for withholding evidence did he acknowledge defendant as the shooter.

At the time of the shooting, Jorge Castenada was outside his apartment on Norton Avenue and saw Stumpf and Springer drive up to where three men were standing. He heard shots, but did not see anyone with a gun. After the shots, he saw the car take off and crash into a metal pole and Springer get out and run off. Castenada went to the vehicle and saw blood, then called the police.

Stumpf died at the scene. The autopsy revealed four gunshot wounds, two of which were the cause of death. The shots had been fired from close range. The police also found two expended bullets in the Toyota. According to a ballistics expert, the expended bullets and fragments recovered from the car and Stumpf's body were all either .38- or .357-caliber and had similar lands and grooves. The expert could not, however, determine whether they had been fired from the same weapon.

Defendant testified and offered an alibi defense. According to defendant, on the evening of the shooting, he went with a friend, Betty Robinson, to Hollywood to see a movie. They arrived about 11:00 p.m. and left about 12:15 a.m. Driving back on the freeway, defendant's car's engine cut out. Thirty or 45 minutes later, Louis Hansbrough pulled over and gave him assistance. At trial, Hansbrough confirmed he had stopped to help defendant, but could not remember the date. Despite the efforts of a private investigator, the defense was unable to locate Robinson.

Defendant denied being at the scene of the shooting or killing Stumpf.

2. Murder of David Adkins; Attempted Murder of Kenneth Shy

On the evening of February 20, 1988, David Adkins and Kenneth Shy were on the corner of Lilita Street and Benwell Drive in Lynwood when they were joined by Roger Outley and Donald Jacobs. The area was associated with the Lynwood Neighborhood Crips, a gang also known as "N-Hood" or "Neighborhood" whose members were rivals of the Ghost Town Crips. Defendant and Anthony Bereal belonged to the Ghost Town Crips.

As Adkins, Shy, Outley, and Jacobs stood talking, they saw defendant, wearing a black jacket, and Bereal, wearing a brown Pendleton shirt, walk up Benwell Drive with their hands behind their backs. When they were about 100 yards away, Adkins said, "There's some Ghost Town." Outley had noticed both defendant and Bereal in the area previously. As the two approached, Bereal said, "What's the neighborhood like?" Initially, no one replied, and Bereal repeated "This is Neighborhood" several times. When defendant and Bereal began to walk away, Adkins said, "This is Neighborhood," as if he agreed with Bereal. At that moment, defendant pulled a gun from his jacket and began shooting, hitting Adkins from 10 to 12 feet away. He then went up to the wounded Adkins lying in the street and shot him again at point-blank range. In the meantime, Shy had started riding away on his bicycle, and defendant shot at him also, hitting him in the upper thigh.

Outley testified he was positive defendant, not Bereal, had fired the gun and did not tell the police otherwise. Although he had not seen defendant before that night, Jacobs made the same positive identification. Shy was also certain defendant was the person who shot him. In addition to these percipient witnesses, several others gave corroborating versions of events. Adkins's cousin, Chrishon Tiffith, saw defendant and another individual approach Adkins, Shy, Outley, and Jacobs and saw one of them, wearing a black jacket, shoot Adkins. Another cousin, Kimbali Walker, was with Tiffith and similarly testified that the person wearing a black jacket was the one who fired on Adkins. Others, including Beverly Blanchard, Kenneth Sledge, Rose Marie Barner, and Blise Bostick, stated that they had seen defendant and Bereal in the vicinity of the shooting and that defendant matched the description of the shooter—shorter of the two with Jhericurled hair and wearing a black jacket.

Adkins later died from loss of blood from two gunshot wounds. Outley and Shy identified defendant to the police as the shooter. Jacobs initially declined to do so out of fear for his safety. The prosecution presented expert testimony regarding gang culture, including reasons gang members would walk into rival territory and their likely interpretation of gang references as challenges.

The defense was mistaken identity and alibi. According to one police report, Bereal was listed as suspect No. 1, which generally indicated the suspect who committed the crime. Mario Macias testified that on the evening of February 20, 1988, he saw defendant and Bereal at a party on Norton Avenue. He was with them the entire evening until he left about 1:00 a.m. The defense also presented testimony from Aaron Belyeu suggesting the police wanted "to nail" defendant even though they believed Bereal was the shooter.

B. Penalty Phase

Because the murder charges were tried separately, the prosecution presented additional evidence of the Stumpf killing as one of the factors in aggravation. (See Pen. Code, § 190.3, factor (b).) There was also evidence defendant possessed sharpened...

To continue reading

Request your trial
665 cases
  • People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2009
    ...v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 923, 930.) A pinpoint instruction must be given if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 2. Ms. Ferrell and Ms. Plummer had no possessory right to the Lime Street apartment. In G......
  • People v. Wang
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 2020
    ...closing argument to make assertions of common knowledge or use illustrations based on common experience. ( People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 215, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ; People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 742, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, 188 P.3d 580.) But in relating the jury’s ......
  • People v. Staden, A111629 (Cal. App. 2/7/2008)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 2008
    ..."A trial court must give a pinpoint instruction, even when requested, only if it is supported by substantial evidence." (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214; see also People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 669; People v. Shelmire (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1058.) A "court need......
  • People v. Reed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 7, 2018
    ...Reed would have received a more favorable result had the court given the complete instruction. (See People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ( Ward ) [reviewing potential error in substance of CALJIC No. 2.92 under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 29......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...of the government behind a witness by giving the impression that steps were taken to assure truthful testimony. People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 186, 215, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464. Prosecutors may not invoke their personal prestige or reputation, or that of their office, and may not refer to t......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...2d 770, §15:10 Wang, People v. (2020) 46 Cal. App. 5th 1055, 260 Cal. Rptr. 3d 343, §§9:140, 11:10, 22:10, 22:50 Ward, People v. (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 186, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464, §21:100 Ward, People v. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, §§1:10, 20:20 Warner Constr. Corp. v. L......

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