And it does not permit the jury to determine what penalty is appropriate after the weighing process because, according to the prosecutor, if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating the jurors have no choice but to impose the death penalty. After the officers were stationed at all of defendant's windows, Officer Valento knocked on the door of defendant's motel room. ), [26] Defendant now contends that since this evidence was excluded at the preliminary examination, the accompanying overt-act allegation should have been dismissed on a motion under section 995. Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. FN 8. 325, 88 A.L.R.2d 785] [attorney-client privilege].) The friend notified the authorities, and both monsters were arrested on November 20, 1979. Norris later expressed remorse for his crimes, but Lawrence Bittaker was wholly unrepentant; when the tape of Lynettes torture was played for the jury, he actually smiled. Robin R. was unable to identify defendant in person, her description of the interior of the van where she was held did not match defendant's van, and the manner of her kidnapping and rape differed from defendant's characteristic mode of operation. Ledford was tortured and murdered by two men named Roy Norris and Lawrence Bittaker, known as "The Toolbox Killers." 1770]) the judge asked the jurors if they had any belief "that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty simply because of the fact that it is the death penalty?" (e) The method of weighing factors and determining penalty. Psychologist Michael Maloney testified for the defense. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal. 732, 579 P.2d 1048], we relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. 3d 301, parallel those of the present case. After describing defendant's life in prison, the prosecutor continued: "Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for Lawrence Bittaker in this case would be a total complete victory for him. In People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal. Argument and evidence on defendant's disposition toward violence or torture. The defense contended that Norris, not defendant, was responsible for the murders. According to KPIX 5, then-Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess called the pairs treatment of the girls sadistic and barbaric abuse. An audio recording was played at the trial which contains the voice of a young girl screaming and begging for mercy while she is being raped and tortured, according to court documents, KPIX reported. Defendant suggests that these provisions required him to testify that defendant participated in the murders, even if that testimony were untrue. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE SIGMOND BITTAKER, Defendant and Appellant, (Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.). [] If the death penalty isn't proper in this case, when would it ever be proper? While driving in Manhattan Beach they saw Andrea Hall, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington. [41] Defendant presents a variety of arguments attacking the admissibility of Dr. Markman's testimony, but all boil down to the claim that to the extent the testimony went beyond the 1974 offense it was not proper rebuttal. Create your free profile and get access to exclusive content. Rptr. The defense exhausted its additional challenges. As for general voir dire of course the code section allows the attorney a reasonable opportunity to make inquiry of the respective jurors for cause. Try again later. Although Ms. R. did not describe the van with the same specificity as North's victim's description of the car, the critical similarity is that in both cases the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle was not merely a container of evidence, but an instrumentality of the crime. VI, 13] of the constitution can be relied upon to sustain the judgment herein. He started to say "that's the type of question that you " but the judge interrupted and sustained the objection. Warning Sensitive Content: Click here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. [48 Cal. And I think I would have a tendency to have a saturation point perhaps below what other people -- an anger point, perhaps, or something to that effect. After finding several letters from Richard Shoopman to Norris and defendant during the search of Norris's residence, the police became interested in the extent of Shoopman's knowledge of and possession of evidence of the alleged crimes. Christina Dralle, a 17-year-old girl staying at the motel, said defendant showed her photographs of Gilliam and four other girls, and said, "The girls I get won't talk any more." Larry Bittakers celebrating his 71st birthday this year 30 years after a jury Defendant contends that the search of Shoopman's cell and seizure of evidence was illegal because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained a reference to the contents of the Ledford tape. 2. [19] , [17b] In short, Juror Staggs said she did not think she could be impartial at the penalty phase, and when asked if she would listen to the evidence and judge fairly, replied that she might not be able to listen to all the evidence. Thus the court should either have limited its instruction to convictions bearing on veracity or, when admitting the evidence, admonished the jury that it could not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness. [6] Finally, defendant argues that even if his consent to the search was voluntary, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence. The right to voir dire, like the right to peremptory challenge at issue in Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. Juror Andry, asked if she would automatically vote for life imprisonment, answered, "Yes, I guess so." In People v. Tubby (1949) 34 Cal. They put Ledford's body in a bed of ivy in a suburban neighborhood, where it was discovered by an early morning jogger. (See Parsely v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. Start with yourself and well build your family tree together 3194]) or under California decisions which govern searches antedating DeLancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. As manager of this memorial you can add or update the memorial using the Edit button below. 3d 731, 758 [117 Cal. 363.) If you take somebody's life, willfully take somebody's life, that you give up your own." Rptr. 569, 373 P.2d 617, 3 A.L.R.3d 946].) 3d 263 [127 Cal. They drove into the mountains, passing the place where Schaefer was killed. 3d 1073], All that is lacking by way of full compliance with section 844 is an announcement of the officer's purpose. This attempt by the prosecutor to enhance his stature with the jury is arguably improper, but hardly prejudicial. Juror Hein formed an opinion of the case based on reading newspaper accounts. 3d 480 [124 Cal.Rptr. cemeteries found within miles of your location will be saved to your photo volunteer list. This list of exceptions to the per se rule of Carmichael, supra, 198 Cal. 3d 841, 864 [180 Cal. He then pushed the ice pick through Gilliam's ear; she screamed and fell dead. The defense objected to the judge's rulings denying its challenges for cause to five jurors, but used peremptory challenges to dismiss those jurors. We characterized the proposed questions as relevant to the felony-murder special circumstances, and held the trial court erred in excluding that area of inquiry. He argues that the testimony was improper under Evidence Code section 730 because defendant did not put his mental state in issue. But although we thus conclude that the prosecutor's comment was improper, since it does not come within the scope of Caldwell, supra, 472 U.S. 320, defense counsel's failure to object is fatal to his contention. Defendant then signed it "Pliers Bittaker," a jail nickname he had acquired from his stories of torturing women with pliers. 2d 497, to uphold the seizure of magazines and paraphernalia and a loaded revolver from a van belonging to the defendant, who was accused of molesting children and photographing them in his van. Thus, in the case of "mere evidence," probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. 2d 381 [74 Cal. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. (North, at p. At one point defendant demands Ledford tell him what she is doing, and she describes an act of oral copulation. [38] The trial court instructed the jury that it could find first degree murder based on the infliction of torture if two requirements were met: "(1) the act or acts which cause the death must involve a high degree of probability of death, and (2) the defendant must commit such act or acts with a wilful, deliberate and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain." And I made that type of ruling, and I've made that clear to the attorneys. [25] It is clear that defendant's motion was untimely. Rptr. With respect to the other issues, since defendant failed to object, we must consider whether the harm could have been cured by a timely admonition. fn. Is that true?" [45] The prosecutor argued, without objection, that the jury should impose the death penalty to deter felons from murdering their victims. Failed to remove flower. 3d 749, 770-771.) ), As in People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. 3d 512. (a)(18)), raising the question whether the acts of torture must be the cause of death. 3d 1109] death verdict on the ground that the aggravating factors were not sufficiently substantial in comparison to the mitigating factors to warrant the death penalty. During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. People v. Barrett (1929) 207 Cal. Section 1531 provides in pertinent part: "The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or anything therein, to execute the [search] warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance. Rptr. (See 995. Here it is the defendant who has a privilege not to call the witness. 18. (P. 85.) When he returned, defendant was alone. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. WebBy the time I finished reading about Shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed. He excused those jurors who raised their hand. Make sure that the file is a photo. He then commented, without objection, that the jurors should make a consistent finding on all of the murders because "you have a chance of having your wishes carried out, as this case goes through the appellate court, more if you are consistent in your findings. The court afforded the prosecutor a chance to respond -- the prosecutor denied the charge -- and then denied defendant's motion. Roy Norris and Lawrence Bittaker, known as "the Toolbox Killers," recorded the torture of their victims through photos and tapes. (She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) Rptr. Section 1076 provides that "[n]o person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to the jury, founded upon public rumor, or statements in public journals, circulars, or other literature, or common notoriety if upon his or her declaration, under oath or otherwise, it appears to the court that he or she can and will, notwithstanding that opinion, act impartially and [48 Cal. McLaughlin was present during this voir dire to assist defense counsel. Link your TV provider to stream full episodes and live TV. Norris was arrested first, giving Bittaker just enough time to destroy evidence. (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal. Because it was equivocal, the judge did not err in finding it insufficient to require her dismissal for cause. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. (Pp. Furthermore, the prosecutor's claim that a death verdict is compelled if aggravating considerations outweigh mitigating by the slightest of margins -- an ounce, or one-tenth of one percent -- is directly contrary to People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal. [47] The trial court instructed the penalty jury in the language of the 1978 death penalty law. Under the circumstances of this case, however, there is no significant danger that the jury would impute Norris's admitted guilt to defendant. Rptr. 35. fn. Rptr. App. Friends and family testified that they had never been seen after the date [48 Cal. 2.20.) On the record before us, misconduct has not been demonstrated. 467, 455 P.2d 395]. In the most recent decision, People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal. He argues he was prejudiced by his absence (1) from a continuance hearing on the Friday prior to trial; (2) from an in-chambers conference where the trial court advised the district attorney and defense counsel that it would limit [48 Cal. (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. 555 [110 P. The officers lawfully seized defendant's van when "incidental to a lawful arrest, [they seized it] in the reasonable belief that such object is itself evidence [fn. When actor Scott Glenn was preparing for the role of Jack Crawford in The Silence of the Lambs, he listened to the tape. Upon returning, he arranged for Norris to take a series of photographs of him with Gilliam, beginning with them clothed, then nude, then during intercourse and oral copulation. Coleman in turn relied on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. p. 81 [101 L. Ed. Defendant objects to testimony concerning his attempt to abduct Jan Malin because he was not charged in this proceeding with any crime against Malin. (Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children. It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. (h).) Since defendant did not claim that any of the 12 jurors who heard the case were subject to challenge for cause, or were not impartial, his right to an impartial jury was not abridged. fn. 3d 1085], Both cases permit the court to excuse a juror when that juror has given an unequivocally disqualifying answer. At trial, confronted with the tape, Bittaker actually had the audacity to claim that it was just a threesome, and pointed out that Lynette had asked them to kill her. Rptr. You can explore additional available newsletters here. App. 3d 915, 959-960 [248 Cal. 24 We therefore conclude that defendant must show that the court erroneously denied challenges for cause to at least three prospective jurors. The defense then filed a formal motion for copy and a continuance to permit testing of the copy; the court denied the motion. Disqualification for cause must ultimately rest on the existence of preconceptions which will prevent a decision from being reached based on the evidence and the instructions of the court. Upon rehearing, we approved a jury instruction to the same effect. Ledford's bracelet was discovered in Norris's apartment. The victim identified defendant and described the car. (Pp. Then, towards the middle the sounds are of Bittaker beating her about the chest with his fists and tormenting the screaming and pleading girl with vise grip pliers on her genitals, breasts and nipples. The legal principles, established in the cases discussed earlier, are clear: if Norris testified fully and truthfully, he is entitled to the benefit of his bargain; if not, the district attorney has discretion to revoke the bargain. But evidence that they committed some other crime would ordinarily be inadmissible. This would have enabled his attorney to research Douglas's background, prepare for his testimony and assess whether they should have modified the defense strategy in light of Douglas's expected testimony. [37] Defendant argues that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. Norris had been convicted of rape. 13. After the arresting officers had notified the Hermosa Beach police department that they had defendant in custody, the officers were informed that defendant may have been involved in "some 187's [murders] of females, that there was Mace or some other type of chemical agent used in one of the attacks," and that some of the victims may have been photographed. 422.). Family members linked to this person will appear here. [48 Cal. Year should not be greater than current year. Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. Rptr. Drag images here or select from your computer for Shirley Lynette Ledford memorial. medianet_crid = "114740316"; But the further implication that Norris had no history of violent rape probably could not have been cured without informing the jury that Norris had such a history. Officer Valento explained this to [48 Cal. Regardless of those circumstances the jury would still have heard evidence that defendant killed Lamp because she had witnessed the crimes he perpetrated on another victim, and that defendant had tortured four of his other victims. [7] Defendant contends that the warrantless seizure of his van following his arrest was illegal because the officers did not come upon the van "inadvertently" (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443 [29 L. Ed. In such circumstances the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the juror's actual capacity to act impartially, and the trial court's determination is binding on an appellate court. To add a flower, click the Leave a Flower button. 7 Thus, defendant does not allege insufficient probable cause; rather, he contends that the procedure and form used for the issuance of the warrant were illegal. Defendant unpersuasively argues that the second entry by the officers, when the door was kicked in, violated section 844 because the officers failed to give defendant an opportunity to admit them. 1, 609 P.2d 468].). 12 After receiving no response from within the motel room, Officer Valento knocked two more times. She also had extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers. Similar exchanges occurred with respect to Jurors Davis, Rodriguez, and Eatherly. With Norris's assistance, the police discovered and identified the skulls of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp. Webuse table 6 1 to find the saturation mixing ratio. 224, 591 P.2d 514], however, the court criticized the use of the "instrumentality of the crime" theory to justify the search of an automobile. or don't show this againI am good at figuring things out. at p. Norris and Bittaker were apprehended in November, after Norris told a friend about Lynettes murder, as well as 4 others he and Bittaker had committed in the previous few months; in those they had dumped the victims bodies in remote locations, so they had not yet been found. Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. Defendant and Norris had seen a gangster movie while in prison in which the villain killed his victims in this fashion. Norris in return agreed to help the sheriff to find the bodies of the victims and physical evidence relating to the murders, to testify at defendant's trial, and to plead guilty to five counts of murder without special circumstances, two counts of rape, and one of robbery. 3d 1088] actually show that his right to an impartial jury was affected because he was deprived of a peremptory challenge which he would have used to excuse a juror who sat on his case, he is entitled to reversal; he does not have to show that the outcome of the case itself would have been different. Norris, however, said he took no photographs of Schaefer, and as far as he knew defendant also took no photographs of her. Rptr. It does not appear that Gage formed any actual opinion based on the office conversation, but simply felt bad for the mother. WebShirley Lynette Ledford passed awayon 1 Nov 1979in Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. She recalled that the case involved people being picked up and raped in a van, and also that pictures were taken of the people who were killed. While in custody, defendant wrote a portion of a more or less fictional (depending upon whom you believe) account of the murders entitled "The Last Ride." 172, 450 P.2d 564] and its progeny to uphold the seizure of the van as an instrumentality of the crime. Defendant responded that Norris had training in martial arts. 3d 1066] (At this point, according to Douglas, defendant tortured Gilliam. The prosecutor referred to this event in his penalty phase argument. 638-639.) The defense presented psychiatric evidence that defendant may have been in an altered state of consciousness at the time of the assault; the prosecution presented contrary expert evidence in rebuttal. In fact defendant helped throughout the search, pointing out photographs in a box, and opening his combination safe for the officers. Bittaker and Norris other victims were all, like Lynette, teenage girls: Andrea Hall, 18, Lucinda Schaefer, 16, Jackie Gilliam, 15, and Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13. 3d 1067] when Norris said they were killed. FN 4. In People v. Hill, supra, 12 Cal. The provision in the agreement providing for judicial review to determine whether the district attorney abused his discretion is troubling. The prosecutor challenged for cause. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. 31 But since any prejudice from the prosecutor's comment could have been cured by a timely objection and admonition, defense counsel's failure to object thus bars consideration of this issue. We therefore find no error in the ruling. (Rogers, at p. Defendant contends that subsequent searches of his van, storage boxes, and jail cell, done pursuant to a warrant, were unlawful. (Jackson, supra, at pp. (d) Consistency to preclude reversal on appeal. Rptr. The prosecution requested two additional challenges also, to which the court agreed. 3d 258, 283 [148 Cal. defendant said that kidnapping with bodily harm carried a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. Section 1076 is not directly in point, since Staggs was not so much prejudiced against the defendant as she was against the offense itself. Rptr. (See Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. As the Court of Appeal correctly found in People v. Case (1980) 105 Cal. Although the plurality opinion of Justice Stewart concluded that a seizure could not be justified on the theory that the vehicle was itself the "instrumentality" of the crime because the plain-view doctrine applied only to inadvertent discovery of incriminating evidence (id., at pp. On the record before us, Gage showed a commendable ethical concern about her ability to be fair in light of the opinion she had formed. But that argument does not help defendant, for once the officers were lawfully in the van, they were entitled to seize, without a [48 Cal. Likewise his failure to object to the allegedly improper argument bars that issue on appeal. 3d 512 [220 Cal. FN 14. The problem in applying this rule is that it makes the issue turn on the prosecutor's good faith, and the record will rarely contain evidence bearing on that matter. They drove to the mountains where he and Norris took the photographs and made a tape recording. After raping a woman in Colorado, Norris returned to California and called defendant. The judge asked if she would be willing to listen to the evidence and be a fair and impartial juror; she said that "I could try, but I believe it would be difficult. The (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. Whether the identification/notice of authority requirement was fulfilled is less clear. Brand's interviews with Bittaker during his final years in prison are the basis of the special. Please complete the captcha to let us know you are a real person. Nye observed expressly that the trial judge had excused only those jurors whose answers made their disqualification unmistakably clear, and said there was no need for further examination of those particular jurors. Arguably the mere mention of appeal is improper, since it rarely serves any constructive purpose and may lead the jury on its own to infer that their responsibility for penalty determination is diluted. App. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. 2d 356, the judge also excused prospective jurors each of whom had "made it unmistakably clear that he would not vote in favor of the death penalty under any circumstances, no matter what evidence was presented." 604, 758 P.2d 1135]: the judgment will be affirmed unless we find a reasonable possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict had the errors not occurred. 3d 1062] area. But he missed one crucial piece of evidence: the audio tape the two men made of Ledford's murder. Rptr. Rptr. But defendant had no [48 Cal. Found more than one record for entered Email, You need to confirm this account before you can sign in. Carmichael said that "[n]o authority has been called to our attention which can be construed as holding that section 4 1/2 of article VI [now art. The problem is that the jury had heard evidence of some felony convictions which, under the law at time of trial, would not be admissible to impeach. Defendant's failure to object to inadmissible evidence, or to request limiting instructions when evidence was admissible for other purposes, bars him from raising the issue on appeal. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. In response to the fourth question, whether she would automatically vote for death if she found defendant guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, she replied, "Well, if all the evidence pointed that way, yes.". Defendant had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, arising from an incident in 1974 in which he stabbed a store clerk who accused him of shoplifting. 2d 755 [290 P.2d 855]; Kaplin v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal. 3d 1107] appropriate penalty. Despite finding 20 multiple-murder special circumstances, the jury was aware at all times that there were 5, not 20, murders. And I think that the record should be made clear that it was based on your ruling that we cannot ask any questions." Malin screamed, and people started to come out of the houses nearby. mango monster mash cocktail wetherspoons recipe, what is a substitute for castelvetrano olives, helen mccrory right arm problem, brigham city temple appointments, city of gosnells intramaps, amish bakery, middlefield ohio, chad vincent ehlers oldest daughter, flight 2862 crash 2005, roy halladay wife remarried, artifacts found in north america, elopement celebrant christchurch, les saints et leurs pouvoirs pdf, quail hunting ocala national forest, chris finch wife, southern national speedway thanksgiving classic,