People v. Williams

Decision Date05 May 2008
Docket NumberNo. S052520.,S052520.
Citation181 P.3d 1035,75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dexter Winfred WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Barry L. Morris, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Hayward, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Janis Shank McLean, Patrick J. Whalen and David A. Rhodes, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

Following the guilt phase of defendant's murder trial, a Fresno County jury found defendant Dexter Winfred Williams guilty of the first degree murder of Miguel Gonzalez (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189)1 and determined that in the commission of the offense, he used a deadly weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery and in the course of a kidnapping. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (B).)

The jury also found defendant guilty of the robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery of Miguel Gonzalez and David Bush (§§ 209, subd. (b), 211), and further found that in the commission of these offenses, defendant used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7.) The jury also found defendant guilty of the false imprisonment of Michael and Rosanna Beckham (§ 236) and not guilty of the rape of Rosanna Beckham (§ 261). At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the court determined that defendant had served two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied defendant's motion for new trial and motion to reduce the penalty pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e), and imposed a judgment of death as well as sentence on the noncapital offenses. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE
1. The Prosecution's Case
a. The events of February 16-18, 1991

On February 16, 1991, defendant, then 29 years of age, and his cousin, Jerry Franklin, arrived in Fresno by Greyhound bus from Northern California. Defendant telephoned the residence of his former wife, Cora Drake, to request transportation to her residence. Cora shared her home, located on North Roosevelt Street in the City of Fresno, with her sons David, then 18 years of age, and James, then 4 years of age.

David Drake answered defendant's telephone call and agreed to give defendant a ride from the bus station to the Drakes' residence. David invited a friend, Michael Beckham, then 21 years of age (who, together with his 19-year-old wife, Rosanna Beckham, was staying at the Drakes' residence), to join him.

David Drake and Michael Beckham took a cab to the bus station, where they met defendant and Franklin and returned with them to the Drakes' residence.

On the afternoon of February 17, 1991, defendant and Franklin began shaping pieces of wax to resemble cocaine rocks so they could sell them as counterfeit drugs. Franklin thereafter suggested that defendant, Michael Beckham, David Drake, and another houseguest, Steve Elias, lure victims into an alley behind the Drakes' residence for the purpose of robbing them.

Michael Beckham offered to pose as a hitchhiker in order to lure homosexual men to drive into the alley, where the others could rob them. Michael Beckham lured one victim as planned and defendant, Franklin, David Drake, and Elias beat him into unconsciousness. Defendant took the victim's wallet, then retrieved various articles from the man's vehicle, including spiked bracelets, two sets of handcuffs, and a hydraulic jack for a vehicle. Defendant distributed the cash from the victim's wallet and gave Michael Beckham $10. Another victim was approached in the same way but drove off when defendant emerged from the bushes and displayed his genitals.

A third incident occurred at approximately 11:00 p.m. on February 17, 1991, when Michael Beckham lured David Bush into the alley and convinced him to remain there for several minutes. Michael left the vehicle and returned with defendant, who opened the door of Bush's vehicle and began striking Bush on the head with a crescent wrench, Entering the vehicle, defendant pushed Bush onto the passenger seat and continued to strike him with the wrench. Defendant demanded Bush's wallet but was angered to see it contained less than $10.

While continuing to strike Bush with the wrench and threatening to shoot him if he tried to escape, defendant backed the vehicle toward the entrance of the alley, a distance Bush estimated to be approximately 100 feet. Bush escaped from the vehicle and waved down a passing automobile, which initially gave chase to defendant, then turned away. Eventually a neighborhood resident telephoned for emergency assistance for Bush.

Bush suffered a broken nose and facial lacerations. At trial, he identified Michael Beckham as the hitchhiker who initially flagged him down, but in police photo lineups and at trial Bush was unable to identify defendant as his assailant. He testified that the assault on him had dislodged his glasses, leaving him unable to see clearly.2

That same evening, David Drake spoke on the telephone with an acquaintance, Kenny Dustin, 18 years of age. David Drake asked Dustin to come to the Drakes' residence because defendant had "[taken] over [the] house." David said he and his younger brother, James, were afraid of defendant.

At Dustin's request, Sara Lowmiller drove Dustin to the Drakes' residence. As she subsequently departed from the residence, Lowmiller saw an African-American man and a White man "scuffling" in the street. The White man, his face bloodied, came to Lowmiller's car window and asked for help. Remaining in her vehicle, Lowmiller followed the African-American man into the alley, thought better of continuing her pursuit, then drove away, returning to the Drakes' residence. There, she summoned Dustin from the residence with her automobile horn. As she waited for Dustin, she observed the African-American man, whom she previously had seen face her, enter the Drakes' residence.

Lowmiller told Dustin that a person who appeared to be bleeding was being chased in the alley, and asked Dustin to explain what had occurred. Dustin responded that he would explain later, directing her to depart. Lowmiller did not identify defendant as the African-American man she observed that evening. Dustin, however, testified that the African-American man seen by Lowmiller was defendant.3

Michael Beckham testified that defendant entered the Drakes' residence late on the evening of February 17, 1991, and gave Michael $10 with instructions to go to a store to purchase alcohol. Angry because defendant had not given him a larger share of the robbery proceeds, Michael—accompanied by Dustin and David Drake—instead used the $10 to purchase rock cocaine, which Michael Beckham and Dustin smoked.

In the early morning hours of February 18, 1991, while Michael Beckham, Dustin, and David Drake were away from the residence, defendant "corner[ed]" Michael's wife, Rosanna Beckham, in the kitchen and attempted to touch and kiss her, then backed her into an empty bedroom, where he removed their clothes. Rosanna, a slight, short young woman, was fearful of defendant, who was much larger and who she knew had served a prison term. She testified that he initiated sexual intercourse with her over her tearful objections, but was interrupted by the ringing of the telephone. Franklin entered the room and told defendant the call was for him. Defendant left the bedroom, and Rosanna ran to the bathroom and dressed.

When Rosanna heard that Michael Beckham, Dustin, and David Drake had returned to the residence, she emerged from the bathroom, entered the bedroom where the others were watching television, and sat down on the bed near defendant. Michael Beckham testified: "I could see [defendant] laying back and my old lady was sitting nervous like this ... and [defendant's] hands were rubbing on her, and I asked him, I said, `what are you doing rubbing on my wife?' And my old lady got up and he says, `I ain't rubbing on your wife.'" Defendant told Michael, "Go fuck yourself." Rosanna, with tears in her eyes, walked into the dining room, followed by Michael; she informed him that she wanted to leave. Michael asked, "what's wrong, what's going on? ... [W]hat did he do, rape you? And she says—she didn't say nothing."

A few moments later, defendant, accompanied by Franklin, began yelling at Michael Beckham, demanding the $10 Michael had received earlier in the evening. Defendant thereafter struck Michael to the ground and started kicking him. Defendant continued hitting Michael while Rosanna screamed. Defendant told Franklin to silence Rosanna, and each time Rosanna screamed Franklin struck her.

Defendant produced a set of handcuffs (procured during the first robbery), handcuffed Michael Beckham's hands behind his back, and dragged him to the back of the residence. There, in Rosanna Beckham's presence, the beating continued; demanding money, defendant broke one of Michael's ribs and caused other injuries.

Defendant thereafter handcuffed Rosanna's wrists behind her back, and at defendant's request, Franklin tore Off her clothes. Defendant grabbed her by the throat and lifted her from the floor. Defendant placed a knife to Michael Beckham's neck and directed him to call his (Michael's) mother for the purpose of obtaining $100. Crying, and bleeding from his mouth and nose, Michael telephoned his parents, begging them for the money. At one point, defendant grabbed the telephone and said Michael owed him $100 for drugs and that he wanted his money. Michael did not know why defendant had increased the debt from $10 to $100. Michael's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 cases
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ...factors. (People v. Salcido, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 167, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 186 P.3d 437; see also People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 649, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035.) We decline defendant's invitation to reconsider our prior 7. Court's asserted suggestion that the jury could......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2018
    ...whole provides adequate safeguards against the imposition of arbitrary or unreliable death judgments." ( People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 648, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035 ; accord, People v. Johnson (2016) 62 Cal.4th 600, 658, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 364 P.3d 359.)V. CONCLUSION ......
  • People v. Xiong
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 302 P.3d 927 [discussing cautionary instruction set forth in CALJIC 2.7018 ], quoting People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 639, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035 [although not expressly stated in the opinion, the cautionary instruction was that set forth in CALJIC 2.70......
  • People v. Delgado
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 2017
    ...compelled. (Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 42, 50-51 [104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29] ; People v. Williams [ (2008) ] 43 Cal.4th [584,] 649 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035] ; People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1322-1323 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 185 P.3d 727].)" (Lomax , supra , 49 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...3d 778, §7:120 Williams, People v. (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 405, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 589, §7:70 Williams, People v. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 584, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691, §§7:30, 7:120, 10:60 Williams, People v. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 441, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295, §§3:50, 22:150, 22:200, 22:230 Williams, People v......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...to decide whether to permit leading questions of an allegedly hostile witness. People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 584, 631, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691. For leading questions generally, see §7:120. §7:40 Direct Examination Direct examination is the first examination of a witness on a matter not......
  • Leading Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2015
    ...are not leading unless they are unduly suggestive under the circumstances. [The author disagrees with statement.] 5 People v. Williams , 181 P.3d 1035, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 (2008); Harris v. State , 979 So.2d 721 (Miss.App., 2008); State v. Applewhite , 660 S.E.2d 240 (N.C.App., 2008); Johnso......
  • Leading questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...to decide when special circumstances are present to allow a leading question on direct or redirect examination. People v. Williams , 181 P.3d 1035, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 (2008); Harris v. State , 979 So.2d 721 (Miss.App., 2008); State v. Applewhite , 660 S.E.2d 240 (N.C.App., 2008); Johnson v.......
  • 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