Homick

*826 Opinion

Defendant Steven Homick was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, 187) 1 and two counts of first degree murder (§ 187), as to which the jury found true financial-gain, multiple-murder, and lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegations (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1), (3), (15)). 2 Following the penalty phase trial, the jury returned death verdicts on the murder counts. Defendant’s motions for a new trial and for a reduction of sentence (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) were denied. The trial court sentenced him to death on the murder counts and 25 years to life on the conspiracy count, which it stayed pursuant to section 654.

This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm.

Facts

I. Guilt Phase

A. The Prosecution Case

1. The Woodman family and Manchester Products

In 1975, Gerald Woodman founded Manchester Products, which made plastic panels used in ceiling lighting. He ran the company, but ownership was divided among his two older sons, Neil and Stewart, each of whom had a 25 percent interest, and his wife, Vera, who held the remaining 50 percent interest. 3 Neil worked in…

Following a bizarre plot hatched in Las Vegas, Nevada, defendant and five others (two of them sons of the victims) carried out the September 1985 murders of Vera and Gerald Woodman in Los Angeles, California. In a federal prosecution against defendant based on these killings, a jury in January 1991 convicted him of murder for hire, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 Thereafter, in October 1991, defendant unsuccessfully requested the Los Angeles County Superior Court to dismiss the murder charges then pending against him in this case. Defendant asserted that Penal Code section 656’s prohibition against double jeopardy precluded the California prosecution because it was founded upon the same act (the Woodman murders) that was the basis of his earlier conviction in federal court. (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

The majority upholds the trial court’s rejection of defendant’s claim, and it affirms defendant’s capital murder convictions. I disagree and would reverse the trial court’s judgment.

In the section that follows, I briefly discuss the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and then…

FACTS

I. GUILT PHASE

A. The Prosecution Case 1. The Woodman family and Manchester Products In 1975, Gerald Woodman founded Manchester Products, which made plastic panels used in ceiling lighting. He ran the company, but ownership was divided among his two older sons, Neil and Stewart, each of whom had a 25 percent interest, and his wife, Vera, who held the remaining 50 percent interest.3 Neil worked in production, and Stewart worked in sales. Initially, Stewart had a good relationship with Gerald, but Gerald and Neil‟s relationship was always acrimonious. When the youngest son, Wayne, joined the company in 1978 after graduating from college, he was given half of Vera‟s ownership interest and a job overseeing accounts and credit. Neil and Stewart resented the manner in which Wayne was brought into the company. That Gerald favored Wayne over his

(footnote continued from previous page)

and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Neil Woodman, and a mistrial was declared. To avoid confusion, the Woodmans are referred to by their first names.

2 brothers increased familial tension. In late 1978, Gerald…