People v. Wilson

Decision Date28 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. S089623.,S089623.
Citation187 P.3d 1041,44 Cal.4th 758,80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lester Harland WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WERDEGAR, J.

A jury in Riverside County Superior Court convicted Lester Harland Wilson in 2000 of the first degree murder of Uwe Durbin (Pen. Code, § 187; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated) and of having personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022.5). It also convicted him of two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) and sustained two allegations that he used a firearm while committing these latter crimes (§ 12022.5). The jury also sustained special circumstance allegations that Wilson committed the murder while engaged in the commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B)) and that the murder involved the intentional infliction of torture (id., subd. (a)(18)). On March 14, 2000, the jury set the penalty at death under the 1978 death penalty law. (§ 190.1 et seq.) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment of guilt but, as explained below, the erroneous excusal during the penalty phase deliberations of the sole juror holding out for a life sentence requires that we reverse the penalty judgment.

I. GUILT PHASE FACTS
A. Prelude

Defendant Lester Wilson lived in Riverside with his wife, codefendant Barbara Phillips.1 On June 8, 1997, a realtor arrived at defendant's home for a prearranged visit and, noticing the back door was open, suspected a burglary had been committed. He called defendant and Phillips to alert them. The pair arrived home and found two televisions and a videocassette recorder (VCR) were missing. A few weeks earlier, defendant had allowed Uwe Durbin, a recovering drug addict, to stay with them. Defendant believed Durbin was responsible for the theft because he had stolen from defendant before. Enraged by the thefts, defendant grabbed a gun and left the house with Phillips and his two pit bulls. The realtor was sufficiently disturbed by these events that he noted defendant's license plate number and called 911, informing the dispatcher that defendant had a gun and was "a little irate."

B. Kidnapping

In an attempt to find Uwe Durbin, defendant and Phillips went to the home of Uwe's brother, Michael Durbin. Michael lived with his girlfriend, L.R., and their three young children. When Michael answered the front door around 10:00 a.m., he was met by defendant pointing a gun at his head. Defendant was screaming about some missing property; he then pulled the telephone cord from the wall and demanded to know where he could find Uwe. Although L.R. and her children initially hid in the bedroom, Phillips found them. Defendant entered the bedroom and told L.R. that she must follow his instructions or he would kill her and her children. After 10 to 15 minutes, defendant told them they were all leaving with him and Phillips to go look for Uwe. Michael drove his car with defendant; Phillips drove her car with L.R. and the children.

As they left Michael's apartment, they saw Uwe walking on the street toward his brother's house. Defendant forced him into one of the cars at gunpoint. Defendant demanded his property, but Uwe professed ignorance about the theft. The group drove to several houses looking for the missing property but were unsuccessful. Phillips suggested to defendant that they take all six victims to their home, and he agreed.

C. Wounding and Beating

Once they arrived at defendant and Phillips' house, defendant continued to wield the gun and demand his property. When he received no satisfactory answers, he turned the radio to a very high volume and shot Uwe in the kneecap. Uwe moaned, and Michael stood up to protest but sat down again when defendant pointed the gun at him. Michael asked that L.R. and the children be released, but defendant refused.

Defendant dragged Uwe downstairs and bound him to a chair with duct tape and rope. Defendant placed two D-cell batteries inside a gardener's glove and beat Uwe with it, hitting him in the head about 10 times. During this beating, defendant was yelling: "Where's my TV and VCR?" In the meantime, Phillips was in the living room demanding the return of their property from Michael, who repeated his plea that L.R. and the children be freed. Phillips told him no one would be leaving and that they were all going to die.

After this beating, Uwe asked for some paper to write down directions to a location where defendant could find his property. Defendant and Michael left the house with the directions, while Phillips guarded the others. Uwe's directions turned out to be bogus, and defendant and Michael returned to the house, although defendant left again thereafter. At this time, Uwe was still bound to a chair, and Phillips was guarding Michael, L.R. and the children.

D. Torture

Defendant went to Nicole Thompson's house. Present at the house were Thompson, Nathan McCullah, and codefendants Norman "Baby-G" Culpepper, Charone "Ron-Ron" Parker and Michael "K-Mack" Woods. Defendant told them he had shot someone, planned to kill him, and needed some gauze. They had none, so defendant returned to his house, accompanied by Culpepper, Parker and Woods. Michael was in the living room, holding a Bible. Parker said he had better read the Bible because they were all going to die. The men laid some plastic sheeting on the floor of the downstairs bedroom to prevent Uwe's blood from staining the carpet, rolled Uwe onto it, and began hitting and kicking him. They also used the batteries in the glove to beat him. Uwe screamed each time he was struck. This went on for about an hour; Michael and his family heard the victim crying, screaming and moaning.

Eventually, defendant forced Michael into the bedroom where they had been beating Uwe. There was blood all over the room. The men used duct tape to bind Michael to a chair and forced him to view his brother's body. Uwe's eyes were swollen shut. Defendant tried to have one of his pit bulls attack Uwe, but the dog refused. Defendant struck the dog and then choked Uwe with a dog chain until he gasped for air. When Uwe told defendant where his property could be found, defendant, Culpepper and Parker left to find it. They returned about an hour later having recovered a television and a VCR, which they put in the living room.

E. The First Rape

During the time the men were beating Uwe, Phillips moved L.R. and her children in and out of the house several times. Nicole Thompson, who by that time had joined the others at defendant's house, took L.R. and the children first to a public park and then to her own house, where she intended to release them. Shortly after she returned home, however, defendant arrived with some of the others. Defendant told L.R. they were going to take a ride around the block. Parker told him he did not "need to do that," but defendant said he needed to make L.R. "understand."

Defendant drove L.R. to a park; her six-month-old baby was in the backseat. He asked her how she could prove to him she would not speak to the police if they let her go. She did not understand what he meant. He then told her to take off her pants. She complied out of fear. He then had intercourse with her against her will, believing the act would ensure she would not talk to the police. They returned to Thompson's house, picked up the others, and they all returned to defendant's house.

F. Resumption of Torture

Upon returning to his house, either defendant or one of the others untied Michael and allowed him out of the bedroom. Michael asked defendant and Phillips to release them, but they refused. Phillips said they were going to kill Uwe. Michael heard the men beating Uwe again; defendant participated in this beating. At one point Michael heard breaking glass. Uwe asked for something to drink; Woods suggested they urinate into a cup and force Uwe to drink it. Defendant and Woods emerged from the bathroom with a cup of urine; Uwe did not drink it all so the men beat him for several minutes before forcing him to drink a second cup of urine. Phillips was yelling: "He did this" and "We're going to kill him."

Michael saw bottles of alcoholic beverages and believed the men were drinking and enjoying themselves. At one point, Michael saw Culpepper emerge from the bedroom with a weight from a barbell set. The weight, which was about as wide as a dinner plate, had blood on it. Culpepper's clothes were bloody and soaked in sweat. L.R. heard the sound of a blowtorch coming out of the bedroom. At one point, Michael believed someone poured bleach on Uwe's wounds.

G. The Second Rape and Escape

Phillips took Michael out of the house on an errand. After they left, defendant isolated L.R. in the dining room and told her he wanted to have sex again. He bent her over the table and raped her. Defendant told her he was not concerned about Phillips returning and surprising them because she did not have a key to the house. L.R.'s fingerprints were found on the table in a location tending to corroborate her account. L.R. testified she complied out of fear.

After this second rape, defendant forced L.R. to help him move Uwe out of the bedroom. At this point, Uwe was wrapped in some plastic sheeting. L.R. opted to carry Uwe by the feet because she did not want to look at his face, which was "messed up," but he was too heavy for her. When Phillips returned with Michael, he took over for his girlfriend because she was crying. Michael helped move Uwe to defendant's car. Uwe was still alive at this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1059 cases
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...be the death penalty. These claims are forfeited because the defense did not object in the trial court. (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 800, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211, 187 P.3d 1041.) In any event, the prosecutor's argument did not in the least suggest the existence of a more extensive cr......
  • People v. Cornejo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2016
    ...explained, failure to join in a motion of a co-defendant generally forfeits the issue on appeal. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 793, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211, 187 P.3d 1041.) However, a litigant need not object if doing so would be futile. (Ibid . ) Here, Detective Sample relied on ......
  • People v. Kerley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 2018
    ...followed these instructions and did not consider the diary entries for any impermissible purpose. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211, 187 P.3d 1041 ["We of course presume ‘that jurors understand and follow the court's instructions' "].)X. The Trial Court Di......
  • People v. Faultry, A122829 (Cal. App. 12/21/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2009
    ...must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806; People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, The Robbery of Said Hasan at the Hilltop Market (Count 5) At 12:45 p.m. on November 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313. This standard requires a stronger evidentiary showing than mere substantial evidence. People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 758, 821, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211. Good cause exists to discharge a juror when the juror loses the ability to render a fair and impartial verdict bas......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...2d 204, §17:140 Wilson, People v. (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 259, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 24, §§3:70, 3:80, 9:30, 9:80, 14:20 Wilson, People v. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 758, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 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, ......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...unless there is expert testimony on the probable effect of such use on the ability to perceive and remember. People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 758, 794, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211. In a criminal case, a defendant may exclude the testimony of a witness when it is shown that the trial testimony w......
  • Jury conduct and management
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the comments demonstrate that the juror has prejudged the case, it is error to remove the juror from the panel. People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 758, 839, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211. Making the Objection • When a juror is seen in conversation with a witness for the opposing side, request a hea......
  • 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