P.

P. v. Pearson

Good Law
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2013S058157California33,142 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

I. FACTS

A. Guilt Phase

1. Prosecution Evidence

a. Introduction On the afternoon of Tuesday, April 25, 1995, defendant, a receptionist with the Conventional Housing division of the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) was fired from his job because he had repeatedly threatened to ―do a 101 California,‖ referring to the infamous 1993 massacre of numerous employees in a law office located at 101 California Street in San Francisco committed by Gian Luigi Ferri, a disgruntled client of the law firm.2 Minutes later, defendant hunted down and fatally shot two of his former coworkers, Lorraine Talley and Barbara Garcia. These facts were undisputed at trial. The sole issue for the jury to decide in the guilt phase was whether defendant premeditated and deliberated the murders.

b. Defendant’s employment at the RHA and statements to coworkers before the murders In January 1993, defendant began working in a temporary position for the City of Richmond in the Employment and Training Department. He worked for that department for a year and then his employment was terminated. In July 1994, defendant was hired in a temporary position as an office assistant with the Section 8 division of the RHA,…

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.