P.

People v. Rountree

Good Law
157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1·2013 Cal. LEXIS 4424·56 Cal. 4th 823·2013 WL 2249163·301 P.3d 150
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 23, 2013S048543California34,317 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

Filed 5/23/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S048543 v. ) )

CHARLES F. ROUNTREE, )

) Kern County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 57167 ____________________________________)

A jury convicted defendant Charles F. Rountree of the first degree murder of Diana Contreras under the special circumstances of kidnapping- and robbery- murder; of kidnapping her to commit robbery; and of robbing her. It also found that he personally used a firearm in committing each crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 209, subd. (b), 212.5, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a).)1 After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4) and imposed that sentence. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

I. THE FACTS

A. Guilt Phase

1. Overview The evidence showed that on December 9, 1993, defendant and his…

Lead Opinion

Chin, J.

*829 Opinion

A jury convicted defendant Charles R Rountree of the first degree murder of Diana Contreras under the special circumstances of kidnapping and robbery murder; of kidnapping her to commit robbery; and of robbing her. It also found that he personally used a firearm in committing each crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 209, subd. (b), 212.5, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a).) 1 After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4) and imposed that sentence. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. The Facts

A. Guilt Phase

1. Overview

The evidence showed that on December 9, 1993, defendant and his girlfriend (soon to become wife), Mary Elizabeth Strader, kidnapped 19-year-old Diana Contreras from a Bakersfield shopping mall, robbed her, drove her to a remote location, and shot her to death. 2 They were arrested a few days later in Kansas while driving Diana’s car.

2. The Evidence

On the morning of December 9, 1993, Diana Contreras went to the Valley Plaza mall in Bakersfield in her red 1992 Eagle Talon. A security officer saw a woman matching her…

Concurring Opinion

Liu, J.

I join the court’s opinion and offer the following observations about the trial court’s excusal of a prospective juror for cause. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 845-848.)

In excusing the prospective juror, the trial court stated: “I don’t know that the law would require that someone violate a precept of their religious beliefs, even though this man presumably was willing to do that if I ordered him to do that, but—but I think that it is—I think that it is cause.”

The meaning of the trial court’s observation is not entirely clear. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 847-848.) It is true, as the trial court may have intended to suggest, that a prospective juror who is unwilling or unable to violate the dictates of his or her religion or personal conscience in deference to the law cannot be compelled to serve on a jury. But it is not true that a prospective juror who agrees to perform the duties of a juror cannot be required to set aside his or her religious beliefs or personal views during jury service. Indeed, that is exactly what the law requires when citizens accept the responsibility to discharge this solemn and vitally important civic duty. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 232, subd. (b)…

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.