People v. Young

Decision Date25 July 2019
Docket NumberS148462
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Scott YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.

Kathy R. Moreno, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette and Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens, Arlene Aquintey Sevidal, Ronald A. Jakob, Stacy Tyler and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.

Defendant Jeffrey Scott Young was convicted of the first degree murders of Teresa Perez and Jack Reynolds ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ), the attempted murder of Daniel Maman ( id. , §§ 187, subd. (a), 664 ), and the carjacking of Jim Gagarin (id. , § 215, subd. (a)). The jury found true allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm (all counts; id. , §§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2), 12022.53, subd. (b)); that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (the first degree murders and attempted murder; id. , § 12022.53, subd. (c)); and that the firearm discharge caused death (the first degree murders; id. , § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations that the murders were committed during a robbery (id. , §§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 211), and that defendant had been convicted of multiple murders in the same proceeding (id. , § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to penalty, and the trial court declared a mistrial. After a penalty retrial, the jury fixed the penalty at death, and the trial court entered a judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. ( Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment as to guilt. But we find the trial court erred at the penalty retrial by permitting the prosecution to make improper use of inflammatory character evidence for purposes unrelated to any legitimate issue in the proceeding. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the error was prejudicial. We therefore reverse the judgment as to the sentence of death and remand the matter for a new penalty determination.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase

On July 18, 1999, defendant and two other men robbed a Five Star Park, Shuttle & Fly ("Five Star") parking lot near the San Diego International Airport. The three robbers were aided by a former Five Star employee, James Torkelson, who planned the robbery and assisted in it by pretending to be on duty. During the robbery, the robbers shot and killed Five Star employees Teresa Perez and Jack Reynolds. Then, while fleeing the scene, the robbers shot at bystander Daniel Maman and stole the car of a second bystander, Jim Gagarin, at gunpoint.

Although the case initially went cold, subsequent investigation revealed the identities of the perpetrators. In 2003, defendant was jointly charged with one of the other robbers, David Raynoha, but defendant was tried alone. Defendant did not contest his participation in the robbery or the carjacking, but argued that he did not fire the shots that killed Perez and Reynolds.

1. Prosecution Case

Around 12:30 a.m. on July 18, 1999, Kendrick Bowman began a shift in the toll booth at the Five Star parking lot, which was located at the intersection of Sassafras Street and Pacific Highway. Bowman relieved fellow employee Perez, whom he saw empty the cash drawer and head to the Five Star temporary office in a nearby trailer. Shortly after he began his shift, Bowman encountered Torkelson. Bowman was surprised by Torkelson’s presence; he thought Torkelson, who had worked as a security guard at the parking lot, had been fired, and Torkelson was atypically early for his shift. Bowman also noticed Torkelson heading for a remote side of the parking lot, which differed from the usual starting point for Torkelson’s rounds.

Immediately after Torkelson disappeared from Bowman’s line of sight, someone approached Bowman from behind and said, "Hey, you." Bowman turned around and found a man pointing a gun at him. Although the gunman wore nylon stockings over his head, Bowman observed that the gunman was a White man in his twenties with a fair complexion and short, reddish-blonde hair. The gunman ordered Bowman to lay facedown on the floor of the toll booth. Bowman used his hand-held radio to send a covert distress signal to the security guard, but received no response. Unbeknownst to Bowman, all of the security guards had left after Torkelson told each guard that he was there to relieve him or her. Bowman then complied with the gunman’s demand. The gunman stepped down on Bowman’s back, emptied the cash drawer, and expressed disappointment at its contents. The gunman remained in the toll booth and Bowman asked him why he did not leave. The gunman responded, "I can’t leave. I’m waiting for my ride."

Bowman heard the door to the bathroom near the trailer open, and the gunman yelled at someone to go into the trailer. Bowman assumed the gunman was yelling at Perez, since she had been heading to the trailer. Bowman then heard one gunshot, followed by a series of shots after a brief pause. The gunman standing over him then fled toward Pacific Highway. Bowman stood up and saw the gunman clearly; he also saw two other men running in the same direction. Bowman then called 911.

Maman, who had plans to spend the night with Perez, arrived at the Five Star parking lot a few minutes after 12:30 a.m. to pick her up. Maman was driving a green van. As Maman was parking the van near the trailer, he saw two men come out of the trailer. One of the men aimed a revolver at him and started firing. Maman immediately drove away. Maman described the gunman as being approximately five feet seven inches tall, and wearing a stocking over his head.

Around the same time, Gagarin was retrieving his car from Park & Ride, a parking lot across Pacific Highway from the Five Star parking lot. He stopped at the Park & Ride exit booth, which was manned by Michael Mackey. Gagarin and Mackey first heard noises coming from the Five Star parking lot that Mackey dismissed as firecrackers, followed by noises that sounded more like gunshots. Gagarin and Mackey then saw a dark van leave the Five Star parking lot, followed by three men running towards the Park & Ride parking lot from the Five Star parking lot. The first man to arrive at the Park & Ride parking lot was armed and ran past the exit booth. The second and third men fired shots behind them before running up to the exit booth. Gagarin and Mackey both testified that the men were White and wore dark clothing, dark caps and nylon stockings over their faces. The shorter of the two men pointed a gun at Mackey and demanded the car, while the taller man pointed a silver-colored gun at Gagarin. Both Gagarin and Mackey raised their hands in surrender, and Gagarin told the assailants to take his car. The assailants then exited the lot, heading east on Sassafras Street. Just as they left, the dark van that Gagarin and Mackey had seen driving away from the Five Star parking lot pulled into the Park & Ride parking lot. The driver asked if they were all right and told them that there had been shots fired at the Five Star parking lot and he believed that the shots were aimed at him. Mackey then called 911. At the preliminary hearing, Mackey "felt 75 percent sure" that defendant was the shorter gunman.1

San Diego Police Department officers arrived within minutes of Bowman’s call. Before they arrived, Bowman had entered the trailer and discovered the bodies of Perez and Reynolds facedown on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds

to the back of their heads. Bowman did not touch anything, having recognized that Perez and Reynolds were dead. When the officers arrived, they checked both victims for signs of life but found none.

A homicide investigation team from the San Diego Police Department also responded to the scene. Members of the team discovered that the telephone lines and computer power cord in the trailer had been cut. They found two bullet casings fired by a Glock nine-millimeter semiautomatic firearm: one near Perez’s arms and another by Reynolds’s head. They also recovered four fired bullets: (1) a .38-caliber revolver round fired from inside the trailer, leaving a bullet hole in the trailer wall; (2) a .38-caliber revolver round near Perez’s body, and (3) two Glock rounds near Reynolds’s body. They also found bullet holes in the carpet under the victims’ heads, which indicated that the victims had been shot while lying facedown. There were no signs of a struggle, and the safe was open. Perez’s car was found inside the Five Star parking lot. A nine-millimeter Glock cartridge was found on the ground outside the car, and a Glock bullet, which was used to shatter the passenger window, was found lodged in the driver’s seat. A bank deposit bag containing $1,512 in cash and a deposit slip for a $2,457 deposit were recovered in the front seat. A roll of duct tape was also found. A strand of hair found on the tape was later tested; testing revealed the DNA belonged to Max Anderson, who would later be identified as one of the robbers.

Gagarin’s car was discovered less than a mile from the Five Star parking lot. A nine-millimeter bullet casing was found on the ground outside the car, and a Glock containing 12 live nine-millimeter cartridges was found on the front passenger seat. Ballistics testing confirmed that all of the nine-millimeter casings from the trailer matched the magazine in Gagarin’s car. Dr. Christopher Swalwell examined the bodies at the scene on the night of the robbery and performed autopsies the next morning. Dr. Swalwell concluded that both victims died from gunshot wounds

to the back of the head. Perez had two gunshot wounds, one on each side of her head, caused by a .357 magnum or a .38-caliber...

To continue reading

Request your trial
109 cases
  • People v. Schultz
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 23 Noviembre 2020
    ...of prejudice, undue consumption of time, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. (See People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.5th 905, 930–931, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, 445 P.3d 591 ( Young ).) A First Amendment claim, on the other hand, asks a court to exclude evidence not only because it is irrele......
  • People v. Parker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 2022
    ...and by reasonable inference’ to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive." ’ " ( People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.5th 905, 931, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, 445 P.3d 591.) We review the trial court's evidentiary decision for abuse of discretion, disturbing it only if we conclude tha......
  • People v. Nieves
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 2021
    ...of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. ( People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.5th 905, 931, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, 445 P.3d 591.) "We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence ‘for abuse of discretion, and [the ruling]......
  • State v. Was in Possession Koma Kekoa Texeira
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 2020
    ...outweighed by the risk of undue delay, prejudice, or confusion (§ 352)." (emphasis added)); see also People v. Young, 7 Cal.5th 905, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, 445 P.3d 591, 614–15 (2019) ("In other words, courts treat third party culpability evidence ‘like any other evidence: if relevant it is a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...when referring to facts not in evidence or when asking a jury to put themselves in the shoes of a victim. People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 905, 933, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192. Reference to facts not in evidence is highly prejudicial because of the special regard the jury has for the prosecutor......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Cal. App. 2d 743, 276 P.2d 23, §22:40 Young v. Sorenson (1975) 47 Cal. App. 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, P......
  • Relevance and prejudice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a party that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 905, 927, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192. Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of §352 if it encourages the jury to prejudge the case based on ext......
  • 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
    ...the detective informed the defendant that other individuals were seeking deals in exchange for their cooperation. People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.5th 905, 925. The detective neither expressly nor impliedly promised the defendant a deal if he confessed before the other individuals. Id. Further,......
  • 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