People v. Williams

Good Law
2006 Cal. LEXIS 15409·2006 Daily Journal DAR 16879·40 Cal. 4th 287·52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268·148 P.3d 47
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 28, 2006S056391California42,442 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moreno, J.

Defendant Bob Russell Williams, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) 1 He admitted the special circumstances of committing the murder in the course of a rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)) and of a burglary (id., subd. (a)(17)(G)), but did not admit to the charged sodomy special circumstance. He also pleaded guilty to five counts of burglary and one count of attempted escape. At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty for the murder at death. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to modify the death verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced defendant to death.

Defendant’s appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm this judgment in its entirety.

I. Statement of Facts

A. Prosecution Evidence

After defendant entered the above mentioned plea on June 4, 1996, the penalty phase trial commenced. The circumstances of defendant’s rape and murder of Mary Breck were the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. That evidence, based largely on statements made by defendant after his arrest, discloses the following circumstances. On October 27, 1994, defendant noticed the Breck residence during a morning walk along a canal bank that ran…

Concurring Opinion

Corrigan, J.

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment, but express caution regarding the jury selection discussion.

The majority assumes, without deciding, that Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231 [ 162 L.Ed.2d 196 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 ], compels a comparative analysis of the cold record on review of a Wheeler/Batson challenge. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 312.) I agree that such an assumption is prudent here. I write separately to voice concern that a cold-record review is a particularly questionable method for achieving the important goal that jury selection be untainted by group bias.

There are a great many legitimate factors that an advocate may properly consider in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Many of these are subtle nuances, including attitude, tone of voice, facial expression, and the like. These nuances are seldom captured by the written record. Further, an advocate may be willing to accept a juror who shares some characteristics with an excused juror because of other life experiences or views that make the accepted juror less problematic from the advocate’s perspective.

*340 Jury selection is, and should be, a highly individualized process. Juror by juror consideration…

Opinion

Defendant Bob Russell Williams, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of murder (Pen.Code, § 187.) [1] He admitted the special circumstances of committing the murder in the course of a rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)) and of a burglary ( id., subd. (a)(17)(G)) but did not admit to the charged sodomy special circumstance. He also pleaded guilty to five counts of burglary and one count of attempted escape. At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty for the murder at death. The trial court denied defendant's motion to modify the death verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced defendant to death.

Defendant's appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm this judgment in its entirety.

After defendant entered the above mentioned plea on June 4, 1996, the penalty phase trial commenced. The circumstances of defendant's rape and murder of Mary Breck was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case. That evidence, based largely on statements made by defendant after his arrest, discloses the following circumstances. On October 27, 1994, defendant noticed the Breck residence during a morning walk along a canal bank that ran behind the residence. He entered through the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.