Potential RJA violation during the penalty phase of a capital case – referring to defendant as a wolf – was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. After defendant was found guilty of murdering and raping an 11-year-old, the prosecutor’s reference to defendant as a “predator” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” did not violate the RJA. Additionally, where the judgment was entered before the effective date of the RJA, the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to RJA claims asserting racially discriminatory language. Assuming without deciding that more references to defendant as a “wolf” violated the RJA, any error was…
Potential RJA violation during the penalty phase of a capital case – referring to defendant as a wolf – was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. After defendant was found guilty of murdering and raping an 11-year-old, the prosecutor’s reference to defendant as a “predator” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” did not violate the RJA. Additionally, where the judgment was entered before the effective date of the RJA, the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to RJA claims asserting racially discriminatory language. Assuming without deciding that more references to defendant as a “wolf” violated the RJA, any error was harmless given the context of the challenged language, the aggravating and mitigating factors at the penalty phase, and surrounding circumstances.
Guilt phase holdings: 1) defendant was not unlawfully detained when he consented to a blood draw where nothing occurred at the police station to transform defendant’s voluntary encounter into a coercive one; 2) the trial court properly denied a mistrial and did not remove Juror 7 after testimony that defendant used a BB gun to shoot at birds, despite Juror 7’s particular love of animals, given that Juror 7 appeared unaffected by the testimony; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Hill, defendant’s neighbor, to testify that she had an extramarital relationship with him where it was not unduly prejudicial and was relevant to Hill’s credibility. [Editor’s note: Justices Liu and Evans each filed concurring and dissenting opinions, and would have reversed the judgment of death based on violations of the RJA.]
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S159120.PDF