People v. Wilson

Decision Date11 July 2005
Docket NumberNo. S039632.,S039632.
Citation36 Cal.4th 309,30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513,114 P.3d 758
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Paul WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Timothy J. Foley, San Francisco, 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 and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certiorari Denied March 27, 2006. See 126 S.Ct. 1617.

CHIN, J.

In 1988, a jury convicted defendant Robert Paul Wilson of the first degree murder (Pen.Code,1 §§ 187, 189) and robbery (§ 211) of Roy Swader, found that defendant used a firearm in the commission of each offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and found true a special circumstance allegation that he committed the murder during the course of a robbery. (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A).) The jury returned a verdict of death.

On petition for writ of habeas corpus, we concluded defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain testimony and tape recordings rendered inadmissible under Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246. (In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222.) We vacated the judgment in its entirety. (Id. at p. 958, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222.) We also dismissed the companion automatic appeal as moot. (People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212.) However, "in an attempt to avoid the recurrence of error on retrial, we discuss[ed] certain issues for the guidance of the parties and the trial court on remand." (Id. at p. 930, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212.)

On retrial in 1994, a jury again convicted defendant of first degree murder (§§ 187, 189) and second degree robbery (§ 211), and found true the robbery special-circumstance allegation. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) It also found true the enhancement allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder and robbery (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that he was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The second jury also returned a verdict of death.

The trial court denied the automatic motion to reduce the penalty to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (§ 190.4), and sentenced defendant to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239.) For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

On September 5, 1984, Long Beach police found Roy Swader's body inside a van in a parking lot. All the van's windows were rolled up and the doors were locked. There was no evidence of a struggle.

The cause of death was two gunshot wounds to his head. Either shot could have been fatal. Swader's left front pocket was pulled outwards and his belt was undone. A receipt from a Shell gas station in Indio was found in Swader's shirt pocket. No wallet was found, although Swader was known to carry a "trucker's wallet" in his left pocket, secured to his belt by a chain.

The prosecution presented evidence that Swader lived in Tucson, Arizona with his two young daughters. He made a living buying tools in Paramount, California, and then selling them at a swap meet in Tucson. Normally taking one adult with him on his trips to California, Swader bought the tools with cash and would often carry between $1,500 to $3,000 in his trucker's wallet. He also carried a revolver for protection.

In the summer of 1984, defendant2 worked for Swader at the Tucson swap meet. He often accompanied Swader to California and helped him load and unload the tools. Defendant moved in with Swader for a month between July and August 1984, and afterwards moved in to the Tucson home of Sonya Cravens3 and Wayne Anderson.4

More than a week before the murder, Kimberlee Jost, who worked at the swap meet and knew Swader, was at Cravens's and Anderson's home when defendant was there. Defendant stated he was at Swader's apartment while Swader was counting money on the kitchen table. Defendant said "there was four fucking thousand dollars on the table" and that he "was tempted to knock [Swader] off because he could live good on four fucking thousand dollars." Jost also testified that after Swader's death, defendant came up to Jost at the swap meet and told her "for no reason" that he had not gone with Swader to California, but instead had been partying with a friend in Sabino Canyon, Arizona.

On September 4, 1984 (one day before he was found dead), Swader left Tucson for California in his van and trailer. He stopped for gas in Indio later that day. Robert Berrie, the gas station attendant, testified that he recognized Swader because he would stop at the station each week. That day, Swader was driving the van and defendant was the only other occupant. Berrie positively identified defendant in a photographic lineup and in court. Swader paid for the gas with cash, which he carried in his trucker's wallet, and obtained a receipt.

When Long Beach police discovered Swader's body in his van, they also found a black T-shirt and a pair of jeans, which were later identified as similar to clothing that defendant usually wore. A fingerprint lifted from the van matched the middle finger of defendant's left hand.

After defendant was arrested in October in Las Vegas, Detectives Collette and Miller traveled there to speak to him. Defendant stated he was glad to see them because he was arrested for murder and did not know who was dead. After detectives told him that it was Swader and that his body was found in his van in Long Beach, defendant said that he made several trips to California with Swader to purchase tools, and that the last trip he took with him was on or about August 13. Defendant also mentioned that on these trips Swader carried large amounts of cash and a revolver, and that he would often stop at an Indio gas station on the way.

After Detective Collette accused defendant of lying and said that he had been "identified as being in Indio," defendant bowed his head and said, "I just can't handle it." Detective Collette testified that defendant said "he was sorry for what he had done, and he was sorry that he left [Swader's] girls without a father." Defendant started to cry after stating that Swader "got me off the streets and gave me a place to stay."

Defendant then gave detectives his version of the events. He said that he accompanied Swader on the trip to California and arrived at the Paramount Theater in Paramount at night. Swader went to the back of the van to sleep. About 2:30 a.m., defendant began thinking about using Swader's money to pay off a $13,000 debt he owed in Kansas. He took Swader's gun out of the console and shot Swader twice in the head while he was sleeping. Swader started "gurgling," and defendant got into the driver's seat and drove away. Defendant drove on the freeway and, by a bridge, he threw the gun out the window. Stopping at a park, defendant took Swader's wallet and $2,300 in cash, and left. He took a taxi to the Los Angeles airport and flew back to Tucson. Asked what he did with the money, defendant replied he "blew it all partying." Defendant said he "did it for the money. Money is the root of all evil."

Detective Collette asked defendant whether Wayne Anderson was involved. He was silent for 30 to 40 seconds, and then answered, "Yes." Defendant then said that "he and Wayne had a pact. The first one caught would take the rap." Defendant explained that "there was no point in the both of us frying over this." Defendant said that on September 3, he and Anderson talked about robbing Swader and dividing the money equally. Defendant said they decided to kill Swader "[b]ecause he was big, and he would kick their ass if they tried to rob him."

Explaining what happened, defendant said that he was in the driver's seat and that Anderson was in the passenger seat, and "all of a sudden, there was a boom, and it was over with. [Anderson] shot the victim twice in the head." Defendant admitted the idea to rob and kill Swader was both his and Anderson's; "they shared the idea 50-50."

When Detective Collette asked defendant if he wanted to have his statement tape-recorded, he said "he'd rather not." Defendant looked over the interview notes Detective Collette had taken. Defendant signed the last page, where he also wrote that the notes reflected an accurate account of his statement.

2. Defense Evidence

Defendant testified on his own behalf. On the day after Labor Day, defendant, Swader, and Anderson left Tucson for California. On the way, they stopped in Indio. Anderson was asleep and did not leave the van. They arrived in Paramount after dark. Around midnight, defendant went to the back of the trailer to sleep. Defendant woke up to a loud noise which sounded like a backfire from a car. He climbed out of the trailer to urinate. He then heard a second loud noise, which he thought was a gunshot. He believed the sound came from the van.

When defendant opened the driver's door, he saw Anderson standing over Swader and pulling at Swader's belt. Anderson turned around, pointed a gun at defendant, and told him to get in and drive. Defendant later said he did not actually see Anderson with a gun, but believed that Anderson was armed with one.

Defendant drove on the freeway, exited in Long Beach, and stopped in a park. Defendant and Anderson left the van and trailer, which defendant locked out of habit. Anderson started walking off and defendant followed him. Anderson stopped at a phone booth and called a taxi. Defendant and Anderson left in the taxi and went to the airport. Anderson paid for the taxi from "a big, old wad" of money. They flew to Phoenix, Arizona,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
532 cases
  • People v. Molano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2019
    ...evidence. ( People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 154, 193, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 722, 245 P.3d 366 ; People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 356–357, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 114 P.3d 758.) Acting within the scope of its discretion, the court here ruled the evidence inadmissible. But the fact that ......
  • People v. Windfield
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 2021
    ...flee,’ to ‘take adequate preventative measures to stop the witness from disappearing.’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 342, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 114 P.3d 758.)Unlike the witness in Louis , Nikki had no criminal background and there was no indication she would disappear......
  • People v. Vega-Robles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 2017
    ...substantial evidence means " ‘ "evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury.’ " ’ " ( People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 114 P.3d 758.) There was certainly enough evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to sell drugs, and a separate conspiracy to commit......
  • People v. Chandler, A114037 (Cal. App. 2/18/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2009
    ...witness shown to be unavailable is admissible at trial if the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 343; People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 303.) Specifically, "[t]he defendant `must not only have had the opportunity to cros......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...C, §2.4; §3.4.1(1) People v. Wilson, 38 Cal. 4th 1237, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 73, 136 P.3d 864 (2006)—Ch. 1, §4.13.1(1) People v. Wilson, 36 Cal. 4th 309, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 114 P.3d 758 (2005)—Ch. 3-B, §1.2.2; Ch. 4-A, §4.1.2(1); Ch. 5-E, §3.2.2 People v. Wilson, 3 Cal. 4th 926, 13 Cal. Rptr.......
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...to a defendant as a ‘liar’ if it is a ‘reasonable inference based on the evidence. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 338, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 114 P.3d 758.) Higgins’s testimony was at odds with the victims’ testimony, particularly with respect to how Higgin......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...to prevent a witness from disappearing unless it knows of a substantial risk that the witness would abscond. People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 342. Once a showing of reasonable diligence is made, unavailability under the Confrontation Clause can be established under any provision of E......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...211, §§2:110, 3:90, 7:70, 22:100 Wilson, People v. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620, §§22:150, 22:160 Wilson, People v. (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 309, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, §§9:60, 9:170 Wilson, People v. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 926, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 259, §12:80 Wilson, People v. (2020) 56 Cal......
  • 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