People v. Williams

Citation756 P.2d 221,45 Cal.3d 1268,248 Cal.Rptr. 834
Decision Date11 July 1988
Docket NumberCr. 23059,No. S004522,S004522
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties, 756 P.2d 221 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Allen WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Jeffrey J. Stuetz, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jesus Rodriguez, Jay M. Bloom, Michael D. Wellington

and Keith I. Motley, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law (id., § 190.1 et seq.). As we shall explain, we conclude that the judgment must be affirmed.

Together with Norman Lee Steeg and Kevin John Finckel, defendant was charged with the first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187) and robbery (id., § 211) of Gregory Lock. A felony murder-robbery special circumstance (id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) was also alleged, as were enhancements for being armed with a firearm (id., § 12022, subd. (a)) and personally using such a weapon (id., § 12022.5). Prior to trial Finckel pleaded guilty to second degree murder and agreed to testify against defendant and Steeg. Defendant and Steeg were tried separately. Defendant, who was tried first, was convicted of robbery and first degree murder, was found to have committed the murder while engaged in the robbery and to have used and been armed with a firearm, and was sentenced to death. Like defendant, Steeg was convicted of robbery and first degree murder and was found to have committed the murder while engaged in the robbery and to have used and been armed with a firearm; he was sentenced, however, to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

At trial the prosecution called several witnesses in presenting its theory that defendant had personally killed Lock in the course of the robbery. The prosecution's crucial witness was Finckel. Finckel testified that about 9 p.m. on September 29, 1981, he and defendant--whom he had met in July of that year and who sometimes used the alias of "Michael Brandon"--were released from the San Diego County jail, into which they had been booked earlier that day; neither had any money. On their release, they went to Mission Beach to look for Steeg--whom Finckel had known for about a year--and between 10 and 11 p.m. found him at a bar. Steeg was armed with a .38-caliber revolver.

The three men spoke of burglarizing the apartment of one David Beardsley in Riverside, a topic they had previously discussed; Finckel had met Beardsley in August when Beardsley picked him up hitchhiking and let him stay in his apartment for four or five days. The three men agreed to commit the burglary. Because they did not have an automobile, they discussed how to get to Riverside. Finckel wanted to hitchhike; Steeg suggested they obtain a ride from a friend of his nicknamed "Mad Dog"; Finckel and defendant agreed they would not ride with "Mad Dog."

While at Mission Beach, Finckel went on, the three men encountered one Thomas Plaski. Plaski lived in the North Park area of San Diego and had known defendant, Steeg, and Finckel for two or three months. Plaski gave the trio permission to spend the night at his house.

After leaving the bar, the three walked toward the ocean and then headed down the boardwalk in the direction of a roller coaster. In a parking lot near the roller coaster, they saw Gregory Lock, who was a sailor, trying to "push-start" his automobile, a white 1978 Oldsmobile hatchback with Florida license plates. They asked whether he needed help and Finckel asked if they could have a ride. Lock responded he would give them a ride in exchange for their help. The car was started and the four men entered: Lock was in the driver's seat, defendant was next to him, and Steeg and Finckel were in the rear seat, Steeg behind Lock and Finckel behind defendant.

Soon, Finckel continued, the group was proceeding north on Interstate Highway 5. Steeg then pulled out his gun and stuck it into Lock's neck. Defendant told Lock to pull over, but Steeg disagreed and instructed him to keep driving. Defendant told Lock to empty his pockets and took his wallet and some change. Lock asked if he could keep some of his identification documents and defendant said yes. Eventually the direction of travel changed and the car began to proceed south. Between 1 and 2 a.m. the group arrived in National City and Steeg ordered Lock to pull off the road. As Lock drove to a deserted area near a warehouse, Steeg told him to stop. Steeg instructed defendant to get out and handed him the revolver. He then ordered Lock out of the car. Defendant then directed Lock to walk toward a telephone pole located about four feet behind the car. When Lock reached the pole, defendant told him to lean against it and, after he complied, shot him twice in the back. Lock screamed and started running; defendant fired another round and took up the pursuit; about 75 to 100 yards from where he had started Lock fell to the ground and defendant shot him 3 more times in the back. Defendant then ran back to the car.

With Steeg driving, Finckel's testimony continued, the three men went back to the beach to look for Plaski, but were unsuccessful. They then drove to Plaski's home to spend the night. While there, defendant burned Lock's wallet and some identification papers in the backyard. The next morning Plaski arrived home. Steeg had a conversation with Plaski, in the course of which he said he had a stolen car parked a couple of blocks away. Plaski left to go to a store; while he was gone, the trio departed.

The three men then drove Lock's car to La Jolla, where Steeg sold some tickets to a Rolling Stones concert. From there they drove to Riverside to burglarize Beardsley's apartment. Finckel, who could barely read or write because of dyslexia, had Beardsley's address written on a piece of paper and gave it to Steeg. They waited until dark. Finckel then telephoned Beardsley, who said he would not be home that evening. Later, while Steeg remained in the car, defendant and Finckel broke into Beardsley's apartment and stole a .38-caliber revolver, two cameras, hashish oil, and other items.

After committing the burglary, Finckel went on, the three men drove to Long Beach to attempt to sell the hashish oil. There they encountered one Shane Magee. Finckel had never met Magee before--apparently defendant had--and told his companions not to trust him and not to talk about the shooting. Along with Magee, the three men eventually drove to Las Vegas.

After arriving in Las Vegas apparently on October 1 or 2, Steeg rented a room for the trio--room 28--at the Villa Inn Motel. They brought both guns into the room--the murder weapon and Beardsley's revolver--and Steeg fired the murder weapon, apparently by accident, in Finckel's direction. The trio discussed their lack of money and made arrangements to sell the items taken in the Beardsley burglary. Magee pawned one of the cameras and arranged for the trio to meet with one Dana Cowen. Steeg sold a suitcase containing the stolen items to Cowen and split the proceeds with defendant and Finckel.

Magee also testified on behalf of the prosecution. Apparently on September 30, he encountered defendant, Steeg, and Finckel in Long Beach; he had previously met defendant at Mission Beach. In the presence of defendant and Finckel, he was told by Steeg the trio had killed someone and that if he chose to go with them he would be going at his own risk; he was also told they had left an item of identification on the victim. Magee agreed to help the trio sell the hashish oil. The four men drove to the Santa Monica pier; when they could not find any buyers there, they drove to Ontario, and then to Las Vegas.

On October 1 or 2, Magee continued, he had a stranger off the street pawn the camera for him for $30, and gave some of the proceeds to the stranger and the rest to Steeg. Apparently during the evening of October 2, he traded some of the hashish oil to a drug dealer for what proved to be bogus "dope." He found the dealer and recovered what remained of the hashish oil and received $10 for the amount the dealer had already used; he took the money and spent a dollar of it on a drink. At this point defendant approached him, became angry because he had kept the money and had not given it to Steeg, and accused him of trying to cheat them. Without expressly referring to Lock, defendant said he had killed someone for a car and would do it again for two or three hundred dollars. Magee returned the remaining $9 to Steeg.

Magee decided to part company with the trio. During the morning of October 3, he flattened a tire on Lock's car and made an anonymous call to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department from a telephone booth at the Villa Inn, in the course of which he implicated defendant, Steeg, and Finckel in the murder and robbery of Lock.

Dana Cowen also testified for the prosecution. Apparently on October 1 or 2, she was introduced to the trio by Magee. Defendant and Steeg began negotiations with her on the sale of items which she knew to be stolen, with Steeg taking the major role. At first Steeg discussed selling both guns, but then one or more of the trio expressed a desire to keep one of the weapons. An argument ensued. She eventually agreed to buy a suitcase full of items for $60. At some point Steeg admitted to her that he had killed a man; when she asked him why, he replied, "For money."

Among the prosecution's other witnesses were Frances Rodriguez and two jailhouse informants, William Moore and Roderick Darby. Rodriguez testified that on the morning of September 30 she had discovered that her .38-caliber revolver, a watch, and a number of tickets to a Rolling Stones...

To continue reading

Request your trial
600 cases
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ... ... ( People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 800, 80 Cal. Rptr.3d 211, 187 P.3d 1041; People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 659, fn. 9, 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 788, 854 P.2d 80.) This claim was not revived by the filing of a motion for new trial raising the Davenport claim. ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 254, 66 Cal. Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) ...         In any event, the prosecutor did not argue that the absence of evidence in mitigation constituted evidence in aggravation. In our view, he merely argued that defendant's proffered evidence in mitigation was not ... ...
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Mayo 2021
  • People v. Wall, S044693
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 13 Noviembre 2017
    ...no legal authority supported the admission of an early offer to plead guilty as mitigation, citing People v. (Michael) Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221 (abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 431, 345 P.3d 62 ) and......
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §4. Evidence subject to exclusion under Fourth Amendment
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 760, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363; People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1299, overruled on other grounds, People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176. This doctrine prevents the prosecution from making indirect use of ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...4th 284, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, §8:10 Williams, People v. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 1112, 259 Cal. Rptr. 473, §12:80 Williams, People v. (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 1268, 248 Cal. Rptr. 834, §3:70 Williams, People v. (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 883, 245 Cal. Rptr. 336, §17:150 Williams, People v. (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 392,......
  • Jury conduct and management
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...the court may not consider affidavits containing hearsay, such as statements of a juror to an investigator. People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 1268, 1318, 248 Cal. Rptr. 834. Hearsay is normally insufficient to trigger the court’s duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing. People v. Avila (2......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...of a third party, and any other place where a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1297 (hotel or motel room), overruled on other grounds, People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176; Olson, 495 U.S. at 96-97 (third party's home......
  • 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