People v. Young

Citation24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112,34 Cal.4th 1149,105 P.3d 487
Decision Date31 January 2005
Docket NumberNo. S018909.,S018909.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.

Wesley A. Van Winkle, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias and Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certiorari Denied October 3, 2005. See 126 S.Ct. 57.

BROWN, J.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b))1 from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law. Following a jury trial, defendant Robert Young was convicted of the first degree murder of Terry Rivers (§ 187, subd. (a), count 1); the robbery (§ 211, count 2) and attempted murder (§§ 187, 664, count 3) of Manzine Miller; the attempted robbery of Melva Fite (§§ 211, 664, count 4); the first degree murder of Glen Frazier (§ 187, subd. (a), count 5); the attempted murder of Luther Thomas (§§ 187, 664, count 6); the robbery of Gerald Livingston (§ 211, count 7); and the first degree murder of Sylvester Davis (§ 187, subd. (a), count 8). The jury also found true the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegations as to counts 1 and 5 (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A)); the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation (§ 109.2, subd. (a)(3)); the personal use of a firearm allegation as to all counts (§§ 1203.06, 12202.5); and the great bodily injury allegations as to counts 2 and 3 (§§ 1203.075, 12022.7). The jury further found the robbery-murder special-circumstance (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A)) and burglary-murder special-circumstance (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(G)) allegations as to count 8 not true.

In the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. After denying defendant's motion for a new trial and reduction of the penalty (§ 190.4), the trial court imposed the death penalty for the first degree murder convictions as to counts 1 and 5, followed by an indeterminate term of 25 years to life with possibility of parole for the murder conviction as to count 8. For the remaining counts and special circumstance allegations, the court imposed determinate terms totaling 45 years but ordered those sentences stayed.

We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase
1. The Attempted Murder and Robbery of Manzine Miller and the Murder of Terry Rivers

In the early morning hours of January 30, 1989, Manzine Miller and Terry Rivers were selling rock cocaine in front of Miller's house on East 24th Street in Oakland (Miller's house). Around 2:30 a.m., Miller observed a black-over-green Ford turn onto Highland Avenue from East 24th Street and park. Moments later, defendant and another man walked from Highland Avenue and approached Miller. Defendant told Miller he wanted to purchase $50 worth of rock cocaine. Miller indicated to defendant that he could sell him the drug, but would have to get it from his supplier. Defendant told his companion to watch the street and then followed Miller along a pathway through a nearby vacant lot known as the "swamp," towards Miller's supplier. As they walked, defendant pulled out a gun, told Miller to get on his knees, and robbed him of the rock cocaine he had in his pocket. As Miller begged defendant not to shoot him, defendant shot him above his right hip. Miller survived the gunshot wound and watched defendant walk back towards his (Miller's) house. Miller heard three gunshots shortly after defendant left. When the police arrived at Miller's house, they found the body of Terry Rivers lying across the front entryway.

2. Murder of Glen Frazier and Attempted Robbery of Melva Fite

Sometime after 2:00 a.m. on January 30, 1989, on 89th Avenue in Oakland, defendant exited a vehicle and approached Melva Fite and Glen Frazier as they talked with Frazier's cousin, Ricky Smith. Defendant suddenly began shooting at Smith. Smith ran to a house, and Fite and Frazier ran up 89th Avenue. Defendant followed Fite and Frazier in his vehicle. Defendant's cousin, Patrick Jackson, was riding in the front passenger seat. When defendant caught up with Fite and Frazier near the intersection of 90th Avenue and Cherry Street, he exited the vehicle and demanded their money. Frazier told defendant they did not have anything. Defendant then accused Frazier of previously robbing him. Frazier replied that he did not know defendant. As he and Fite crouched down on their knees, they begged defendant not to shoot. Defendant told Fite to run, and moments later, Fite heard two shots fired. She saw Frazier slump to the ground. Frazier died later that morning from a gunshot wound to his lower back.

3. Murder of Sylvester Davis; Attempted Murder of Luther Thomas; Robbery of Gerald Livingston

In the early morning hours of February 19, 1989, defendant crashed through the living room window of a "crack house" on 74th Avenue (74th Avenue house). Luther Thomas, Veronica Robinson, Joseph Lee Batiste,2 Gerald Livingston, Veronica Hackett, and Sylvester Davis were present in the house. Defendant immediately began shooting at Thomas, the "doorman," as he ran towards the kitchen. Thomas suffered a gunshot wound to his forearm and escaped from the house.

During the commotion, Davis left the northwest bedroom, and entered the southwest bedroom where he jumped out of the window. Robinson, who had been hiding in the closet, followed Davis out of the window.

Meanwhile, defendant entered the northwest bedroom and robbed Livingston of $40. Defendant then left the bedroom and entered the southwest bedroom. Livingston heard the sound of a window breaking, followed by three gunshots. Within minutes after the shooting stopped, defendant entered the northwest bedroom, looked at Livingston, and then left the house through the front door.

Outside, Robinson had crawled toward the front of the house while Davis had crawled toward the rear of the house. Robinson heard Davis say, "Oh, they going to kill me" and another gunshot.

Shortly after defendant left the house, Livingston went to the front door and looked out. He saw defendant standing on the sidewalk and heard Davis moaning in pain. A vehicle pulled up in front of the house as Livingston went back into the house.

4. Ballistics Evidence

Chester Young, a retired ballistics expert formerly employed by the Oakland Police Department, analyzed six bullets recovered from the three crime scenes in this case: the three bullets recovered from each of the bodies of Miller, Rivers, and Frazier; a bullet recovered from the living room wall at Miller's house; and two bullets recovered from the 74th Avenue house.

Young explained to the jury that two bullets are declared "a positive match" when they share a particular number and type of identification characteristics. When the bullets do not share common identification characteristics, the presence of a "pseudo land impression," a very rare mark that is caused by a defect in the gun, very strongly suggests that the bullets were fired from the same gun. Based on his analyses, Young concluded that because all six bullets had one or two pseudo land impressions, there was a "very strong" likelihood that all of the bullets were fired from the same gun. That gun was never recovered.

B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

As evidence in aggravation, the prosecution relied upon the guilt phase evidence of the circumstances of the charged offenses and special circumstances (§ 190.3, factor (a)), a prior conviction for the sale of narcotics that defendant admitted (§ 190.3, factor (c)), and evidence of other violent criminal conduct involving defendant's alleged battery and intimidation of witness Steven Ross on July 16, 1990 (§§ 190.3, factor (b), 136.1, 242).

2. Defense Evidence

As evidence in mitigation, the defense presented the testimony of defendant's paternal grandmother and grandfather, mother, sister, aunt, three school teachers, and a licensed psychologist.

Family members testified that defendant's immediate family moved often when defendant was a child. Defendant grew up in Oakland but spent significant periods of time with his grandparents in Alabama. Defendant had "learning" and "adjustment" problems when he began kindergarten. By the time defendant was in the fourth grade, his problems had escalated into fighting and "disrespecting" authority.

Defendant's father moved out when defendant was eight years old, leaving defendant's mother with the sole responsibility of raising defendant and his siblings. Defendant had a good relationship with his siblings, but had essentially no relationship with his father. Defendant's mother sought psychiatric help for defendant when he was 11 years old because he was wetting his bed and soiling his underwear. Although she took defendant to see a psychiatrist, he would not cooperate with or speak to the psychiatrist.

Defendant started smoking marijuana in junior high school. When defendant dropped out of school in the ninth grade, he began to stay out all night with friends. At some point, defendant began to deal crack cocaine to make money.

Defendant performed below his grade level in elementary school. By age 15, defendant was reading at only a second or third grade level and solved math problems at the fourth or fifth grade level. Defendant failed in alternative school programs that were designed to get him back in the mainstream educational program at his junior high school. Defendant's aunt, Barbara Warren, a school librarian and creative writing teacher with the Oakland Unified School District, testified that defendant was of "average intelligence" but was not motivated. Warren also thought that defendant was "hyperkinetic," had a short attention span, and had possible learning...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2893 cases
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 2017
    ...whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1175, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487.) We " ‘ "presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce......
  • People v. Bedolla, H044681
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2018
    ...there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ " ( People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487 ( Young ).) We determine the correctness of the instructions " ‘from the entire charge of the court, not from a co......
  • People v. Young
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 25, 2019
    ...on the jury, particularly given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. (See, e.g., ibid. ; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1189–1190, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487.)4. Use of Courtroom Restraints During Trial Defendant argues that the trial court violated his rights unde......
  • People v. Cole
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 2020
    ...proceedings ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 489, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677, 133 P.3d 581 ; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1232-1233, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487 ; People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1139-1140, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450 ). Consequently, the procedure......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...on an object varies depending on the amount of pressure applied, since this is a matter of common knowledge. People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal. 4th 1149, 1197, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112. The fact that some .38 caliber handguns hold just six shots is a matter of common knowledge. People v. Sanchez (2......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...3d 911, 121 Cal. Rptr. 236, §14:20 Young, People v. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 905, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192, §§8:30, 21:70 Young, People v. (2005) 34 Cal. 4th 1149, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112, §§4:160, 21:70, 21:120, 21:150 Young, People v. (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 451, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387, §3:50 Young, Pe......
  • Order of proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...evidence that repeats or fortifies a part of the prosecution’s case that has been impeached by defense witnesses. People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal. 4th 1149, 1199, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112. Whether to admit rebuttal evidence over a defense objection that it is untimely rests in the court’s discret......
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...are not inflammatory and principally aimed at arousing the passion or prejudice of the jury.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1195, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487.) However, “[a] prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or......
  • 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