(She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) 3d 162, and the CALJIC instruction which was based on Wiley, and instructed in the language of People v. Steger, supra, 16 Cal. 172-173) and endorsed a jury instruction which required that defendant "commit such act or acts with the intent to cause cruel pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any other sadistic purpose." 2d 72, 76 [207 P.2d 51], we defined murder by torture as requiring an intent to cause cruel suffering "either for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or to satisfy some other untoward propensity." [10] Even if we were to assume that the search and seizure of the Ledford tape was unlawful, the affidavit supporting the warrant authorizing the search of Shoopman's cell contains more than sufficient probable cause. 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. Defendant admitted the assault on Malin. We conclude that the court should have sustained the challenge for cause. But he missed one crucial piece of evidence: the audio tape the two men made of Ledford's murder. Defendant took Hall into some bushes by the road while Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for the intruder. When directly questioned on her ability to reach a decision strictly based on the evidence presented in court, she indicated her belief that she could do so. They drove to the mountains where he and Norris took the photographs and made a tape recording. 5 In explanation, defendant said that the book was part fact, based on what he had been told by Norris, and part fiction. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. This memorial has been copied to your clipboard. FN 14. Defendant claims his purported consent to the search was vitiated by the allegedly illegal arrest (a contention we have already rejected), that the trial court failed to rule on the voluntariness of his consent, that if defendant did in fact consent to the search, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence, and that the items seized by the police officers failed to meet the "nexus" requirement of Warden v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 294 [18 L. Ed. 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.". [11] Defendant claims he was improperly deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to be present on seven occasions during trial. ), FN 20. 9 and thus that a document which says it does not institute criminal proceedings cannot be the basis for an arrest warrant. And I've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would be the questions that I would ask. You are only allowed to leave one flower per day for any given memorial. But when the context does not suggest appellate correction of an erroneous death verdict, the danger that a jury will feel a lesser sense of responsibility for its verdict is minimal. App. 2d 418 [67 Cal. The Attorney General points to People v. Hendricks, supra, 44 Cal. Defendant maintains that a single erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is prejudicial; the Attorney General argues that since defendant received two extra peremptory challenges, he must show that at least three challenges were improperly denied. But this reasoning is inconsistent with section 1076, which provides that if a juror has an opinion based upon public journals, he is qualified only if he affirmatively declares that he can and will act impartially. In the penalty phase, defendant presented testimony from Dr. Maloney, a psychologist, who described defendant's history and personality, and concluded that he had an "antisocial personality disorder." We omit those that are not of arguable merit, or which have been resolved by opinions filed subsequent to briefing. Any process which can yield a conclusion that aggravating considerations prevail by 50.1 percent to 49.9 percentage is clearly not the kind of qualitative moral assessment required by our decisions. hell never hurt another & all that evil that was in him will be there to torture him for eternity plus judgement day will make his punishment greater. Under People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal. 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. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the van's seizure based upon People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. App. The tape recording of the torture of Shirley Ledford was discovered in defendant's van. Defendant drove by and offered her a ride, but she refused. 3d 351 [128 Cal. Subsequent cases, however, have steadily drawn back from the use of a per se standard. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. There is no evidence that any victim went voluntarily to the place of her death, and only then was restrained against her will. For the same reason, we cannot determine whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have resulted from a timely objection. [1b] Defendant contends that an arrest warrant can issue only upon a complaint, fn. 30 Anticipating the obvious rejoinder that the defense, through Dr. Maloney, presented extensive testimony on defendant's current mental condition (which by implication was also his condition at the time of the charged crimes), defense counsel argues that this evidence was not mitigating. These repeated displays of concern about the death penalty before any evidence of guilt has been presented may prompt the jurors to infer that the court and counsel assume the penalty trial will occur." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. She had been hitchhiking home from her job. But again I really don't think that it's going to be that close in this case. [Citation omitted.]'" 3d 480 [124 Cal.Rptr. 3d 1097]. They would get together on weekends, and go to the beach where defendant would photograph teenage girls. [48 Cal. After the third knock, the bathroom window to the immediate right of the door was opened by the defendant, who asked, "Who is it?" 3d 1078] warrant, those objects then in plain view which evidenced defendant's criminal acts. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." The police ultimately recovered fourteen photographs and five letters, two of which were introduced as evidence. Under section 987.9, a motion for expenses must be made by written affidavit, and must be heard by a judge other than the trial judge. We have, however, cautioned that "where a codefendant has made a judicial confession as to crimes charged, an instruction that as a matter of law such codefendant is an accomplice of other defendants might well be construed by the jurors as imputing the confessing [co]defendant's foregone guilt to the other defendants." Perhaps so; one can argue that evidence that a defendant has been in jail most of his life and has an antisocial personality disorder is not likely to sway a jury in his favor. 82, 739 P.2d 1250] further declares that "where equivocal or conflicting responses are elicited , the trial court's determination to his true state of mind is binding on an appellate court.". Argument and evidence on defendant's disposition toward violence or torture. (Norris did not describe any torture of Gilliam.) Defense counsel asked if "what you're telling us is that because of what you have read, you have preconceived notions which would be most difficult if not impossible to put out of your mind?" After the girls entered the van, Norris hit Lamp with a sap (a plastic bag filled with lead weights), then subdued and tied Gilliam. (Bittaker subsequently earned the nickname Pliers from his desire to twist and tear girls nipples with his pliers he had used them in the torment of at least one previous victim.). 3d 1, 28 [164 Cal. During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." cemeteries found within kilometers of your location will be saved to your photo volunteer list. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. In 1987, Paul Bynum, who had been the chief investigator of the Bittaker-Norris murders, committed suicide at age 39. Following defendant's arrest, Officer Valento informed defendant that he was under arrest for robbery, rape, and "288." We affirm the conviction and sentence. Brown stated specifically that "to return a death judgment, the jury must be persuaded that the [aggravating factors are] so substantial in comparison with the [mitigating factors] that it warrants death instead of life without parole." Nothing in the bargain requires or permits Norris to testify falsely against defendant. The evidence in mitigation, by contrast, was particularly weak; it established only that defendant was reasonably civil to persons who were not his victims, and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. This page may contain sensitive or adult content that's not for everyone. 3. What a horrible story. App. 17 We have held, however, that the Ledford tape was properly seized, and that defendant's failure to object bars him from attacking the police's listening to the tape. The Toolbox Killer Airs Sunday, October 3rd. 2d 381 [74 Cal. As stated in People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal. Evidence of the Malin incident was excluded at the preliminary examination but defense counsel did not move to dismiss or strike the accompanying overt-act allegation. WebGetentrepreneurial.com: Resources for Small Business Entrepreneurs in 2022. The first two questions inquired about guilt and special circumstances. 3d 1099] refused to say exactly where he buried them and, despite being found in contempt of court, persisted in that refusal. omitted] of the commission of the crime for which such arrest is made. Defendant took Hall up a small hill, maintaining communication with Norris by walkie-talkie. From June through October of 1979, defendant and Roy Norris kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls in the Los Angeles [48 Cal. In the absence of any reference to parole, pardon, commutation, or the like, we do not think the prosecutor's comment can be considered misconduct. Link your TV provider to stream full episodes and live TV. 1454].) 313, 492 P.2d 1], which states the law governing defendant's trial, a felony conviction was admissible to impeach only if the offense bore upon veracity. Defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an inmate friend. 3d 1062] area. 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. 467, 455 P.2d 395]. Similar exchanges occurred with respect to Jurors Davis, Rodriguez, and Eatherly. In upholding the car's seizure, this court drew a distinction between seizure of a car which is itself evidence of a crime, and a car which is a mere container of incriminating articles. She responded with an unqualified "yes." 3d 1084] 617, 367 P.2d 33]: "[C]ounsel for a defendant in a capital case has the right to question the prospective jurors on voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining whether any would vote to impose the death penalty without regard to the evidence in the event of a conviction. Ill be Looking forward to seeing you. App. Since the error is not of constitutional dimension, the appropriate test of prejudice is the "reasonable probability" test set out in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal. Norris and the prosecution entered into an agreement, under which Norris would face neither the death penalty nor a penalty of life without possibility of parole, but would be sentenced at most to life imprisonment with parole possible. 563, 513 P.2d 611].). Although the trial court's policy is understandable in light of what we said in Hovey, supra, 28 Cal. fn. Thus there is no evidence to support an instruction on the crime of false imprisonment. 3d 21, 55 [188 Cal. Rptr. Norris got out and stood guard while defendant raped Hall. Family members linked to this person will appear here. Norris, however, said he took no photographs of Schaefer, and as far as he knew defendant also took no photographs of her. 3d 1102] and People v. Talamantez (1985) 169 Cal. 3d 512, 538-544, we recognized that the wording of an instruction in the statutory language "leave[s] room for some confusion as to the jury's role" in determining the [48 Cal. App. 3d 36, 67.) 2d 89, 94-95 [17 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620 [6 Cal. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate, or jump to a slide with the slide dots. Rptr. Rptr. Although found in contempt of court, he refused to divulge their exact location, and a police search failed to find them. FN 6. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, bruises on the genitals, and bruises on one elbow. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, 529.) 3d 904, 910 [176 Cal. Ledford was their final victim. 359, 365-366 [28 P. 261], so holds. Your email address will not be published. 3d 1100] that, absent the error in question, the jury would have reached a different result. Rptr. Your account has been locked for 30 minutes due to too many failed sign in attempts. Upon their return, defendant took additional nude photographs of Gilliam. On July 4, 1979, defendant and Norris set out to find another victim. We think this is not a reasonable interpretation of the agreement. Defendant also told Lambert of his abduction of two girls on one occasion, and of another girl on Halloween night (when Ledford was murdered). Add to your scrapbook. Sergeant Farrand, an officer participating in defendant's arrest, testified that Officer Valento announced that it was the Burbank police after knocking on the door. FN 5. The prosecutor referred to this event in his penalty phase argument. Defendant's question to Jackson did not suggest any relationship between the attempted rape in April and the charged crimes that would render the evidence admissible, and when the court sustained an objection defendant made no offer of proof. We do not question a judge's discretion to decide that a juror's disqualification is so clear that further voir dire is pointless, and to excuse the juror, but this does not justify denying voir dire when the juror's answers are equivocal and the juror is retained. They left her body on a random nearby 20 Defendant asserts this limitation constitutes reversible error. In discussing the murder of Cindy Schaefer, the prosecutor said: "And then her body is thrown over so that the coyotes and the maggots and the beetles can finish her off so that nobody will find her. Please contact Find a Grave at [emailprotected] if you need help resetting your password. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account. The prosecutor's description of the process by which the jury should decide the penalty verdict was inadequate because it left no place for a decision as to what penalty is appropriate. FN 9. But if he can [48 Cal. One older case, People v. Freeman (1891) 92 Cal. Real-Time Avsnitt som spelas nu. Under these circumstances, it is most unlikely that the jury would have been led by the prosecutor's explanation of the decisionmaking process to refrain from considering whether defendant's conduct warranted the death penalty, and induced instead to engage in a dispassionate analysis of the statutory factors to confirm that the aggravating predominate by at least 50.1 to 49.9 percent. Judicial limitations on voir dire vary in scope and severity, and in their impact on the jury selection and the ultimate outcome of trial. Because defendant failed to object, the prosecution did not attempt to justify the search, with the result that the record on appeal is insufficient to resolve the issue of its validity. (See People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal. 640, 640 P.2d 776].). The conference at which the court made its ruling was unreported. Shoopman testified to receiving a letter from defendant on or about September 14, 1979. Defense counsel asked Staggs if it was her position that, because of "your strong feelings about victims of rape, that you would be unable to really [48 Cal. (Id., at p. 305, italics added.) The prosecutor relied on this and other evidence to argue defendant's psychological proclivities. 504, 455 P.2d 432]. (P. In determining whether the defendant has made such a showing, trial judges may "bring to bear on this question their powers of observation, their understanding of trial techniques, and their broad judicial experience." In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal. Are you sure that you want to report this flower to administrators as offensive or abusive? Rptr. The jury found intentional murder by means of torture as to all victims except Lamp; with respect to Lamp, it found as a special circumstance that she was killed to prevent her from testifying as a witness. Rptr. Rptr. Within 5 minutes of Shirley Lynette entering the van Bittaker drove the van to the silent place, then Shirley was thrown to the back side of the van. FN 33. Rather, "'[T]here must be a nexus -- automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities or contraband -- between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. Our most recent decision to discuss limitation on voir dire was People v. Fuentes (1985) 40 Cal. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. This principle requires us to uphold the ruling denying the challenge to Juror Gage. 3d 242, 250 [108 Cal. 3d 749 [251 Cal. Murder of Shirley Lynette Ledford - Tool Box Killers - Behind History Since Budds could have seized the manuscript without asking for or receiving consent, the issues defendant raises are immaterial to the validity of the seizure. However, in North v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal. 2d 503 [30 Cal. Juror Walker opined that in a death penalty case, the standard of proof should not be that of reasonable doubt, but absolute proof. The Attorney General points out that the defense was permitted to ask a broad variety of questions on general voir dire. 3d 1087] to questions relating to their views on capital punishment, so the parties should have been permitted to ask follow-up questions. It is apparent that the "complaint," as the term is used in the Penal Code, serves two different purposes. In response to a question whether he could put that opinion out of his mind and decide the case on the evidence, he replied, "I wish I could say yes, okay, but I really don't think so." People fled the court room, including the court room artist, according to "The Toolbox Killer.". 2d 497, to uphold a seizure of the defendant's car, parked outside his apartment, although the defendant had been arrested inside his apartment. WebShirley Lynette Ledford passed awayon 1 Nov 1979in Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. WebThe murders of Cindy Schaeffer, Andrea Hall, Leah Lamp, Jackie Gilliam, and Shirley Lynette Ledford. The majority in North, supra, 8 Cal. We do not so interpret the judge's ruling. (Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. He saw defendant leave a grocery store with a package of meat hidden in his clothes. [21] Juror Kuriki had not been exposed to media accounts of the case, and had no preformed opinions. After reading a list of the 11 statutory factors under section [48 Cal. (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal. 168.) He also objects to the findings that the murders of Schaefer, Hall, Gilliam, and Ledford "involved the infliction of torture" ( 190.2, subd. Our recent opinion in People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal. There was an error deleting this problem. Defendant was sentenced to death. Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. Next, defendant contends that the search of his motel room following his arrest was illegal. Neither can we determine whether the prosecutor, at the time he asked the question, intended to prove the fact at issue. 3d 542, 547-548.) 2d 216, 222 [13 Cal. (See Ross, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 88 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 90, 108 S.Ct. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. 547.). 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. See other search results for Shirley Lynette Ledford Ready to discover your family story? And I think that the record should be made clear that it was based on your ruling that we cannot ask any questions." But when a defendant conceals evidence the prosecutor can argue the inference that the evidence was unfavorable to defendant. When he returned, defendant was alone. You can explore additional available newsletters here. There is a problem with your email/password. 360.). 3d 1063]. App. 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. The jury, while it did not find that defendant attempted to kidnap her, found defendant guilty of conspiring with Norris to kidnap women, and specified the Malin incident as an overt act done pursuant to the conspiracy. Previously sponsored memorials or famous memorials will not have this option. She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. 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. 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. A system error has occurred. The We explained in a footnote that Steger did not define all the elements of murder by torture, but was concerned only with establishing that the act of torture must be premeditated. He claimed, however, that his purpose was not to kidnap Malin, but to test the effectiveness of Mace as a defensive weapon. fn. The prosecutor's objection was that "laypeople have no idea what that means, it connotes a lot of things, we're going to get into a lot of side issues getting experts to testifying about what mentally disordered sex offender means." Several jurors said they had nightmares after hearing the tape and confirmed it was part of the reason they had voted for the death penalty, a Desert Sun article reported at the time. Has he earned the death penalty for the torture and suffering that he inflicted on Cindy Schaefer, Andrea Hall, Jackie Gilliam, Leah Lamp, and Lynette Ledford?" [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. (Compare People v. Hoban (1985) 176 Cal. ", Finally, after reviewing the evidence in the case and discussing the statutory factors, the prosecutor concluded: "What has this monster earned? We have never required an objection to raise claims of error based upon Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320 [86 L. Ed. 3d 1111] of the errors was not prejudicial. They saw, however, a number of items in plain view which, they realized, might be evidence of other crimes they were investigating. Norris testified, however, that all were immediately subdued, and then transported a considerable distance against their will. The Supreme Court reasoned that the right of peremptory challenge is not itself of constitutional dimension; it is a means to protect the constitutional right to an impartial jury. The important point, and one defendant concedes, is that probable cause was shown to support the issuance of the arrest warrant; it is immaterial whether that same document initiated criminal proceedings against him. Defendant suggested dumping the body in someone's front yard so they could see the reaction in the newspaper. Steven Eastman, a visitor at the motel, also heard the tape. provided the arresting officer views it from a position in which he has a legal right to be. For example, during the general voir dire of Juror Staggs, she said that if defendant committed rape, "I think I would probably be more inclined to go for a stiffer sentence, possible." In Nye, supra, 71 Cal. Defendant then parked the van a short distance down the street. 2d 287, 292, fn. The prosecutor asked, "in fact, Mr. Bittaker, Mr. Norris was afraid of you, isn't that true?" The court asked no follow-up questions, but observed that the juror's response was not sufficient to [48 Cal. The judge then announced that, although he was satisfied with his rulings on challenges for cause, "I have decided to give you two additional peremptories in addition to the 26 based on an abundance of caution." It also described the abduction and rape of Andrea Hall (but not her murder), and the abduction of Gilliam and Lamp. FN 13. 317, 628 P.2d 869], which broadened the scope of voir dire to permit examination for peremptory challenge), a party was entitled to put questions which might expose a basis for a challenge for cause.

Volleyball Iq Test, Firestone Cv Joint Replacement Cost, Harold Shipman Sister, Articles S