DocketNumber： S127275
Judges： Moreno, Chin
Filed Date： 5/22/2008
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/2/2024
Opinion
This writ proceeding is related to petitioner Charles Keith Richardson’s automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146].) Here, we review the denial of petitioner’s postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1405
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 12, 1989, petitioner was charged in an amended information with one count of murder. (§ 187.) The victim was 11-year-old April Holley. The information further alleged felony-murder special circumstances for burglary, rape, sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(12).) Petitioner was charged with residential burglary (§ 459) of the Holley residence and forcible rape (§ 261), lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)), and sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)), all of these crimes also allegedly committed against April Holley. On April 11, 1992, petitioner was convicted by a jury of all counts, and all special circumstances were found to be true. On September 8, 1992, the jury returned a death verdict. The trial court declined to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and sentenced petitioner to death. Petitioner’s conviction was automatically appealed to this court. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239, subd. (b).)
As explained more fully in our opinion in the automatic appeal, the victim was found dead in the bathtub of the residence she shared with her mother and sister. Certain hair samples were recovered from debris in the bathtub and from the victim’s clothing; some of these hairs were identified by prosecution experts as consistent with petitioner’s hair. (People v. Richardson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 980-981.)
On May 24, 2004, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to section 1405 seeking DNA testing of four pubic hairs identified in his motion as exhibits 4-A, 16-A, 16-B, and 16-C, which were admitted at petitioner’s trial. Two hair analysis experts had testified for the prosecution. One of them, Steven O’Clair, opined that exhibit 16-A, a pubic hair recovered from the debris in the bathtub where the victim was found, was consistent with petitioner’s hair, as was exhibit 16-C, another pubic hair removed from the bathtub. O’Clair also testified that exhibit 4-A, a pubic hair from a towel stuffed into the bathtub drain, was consistent with petitioner’s hair, as was exhibit 16-B, another pubic hair removed from the bathtub. The second prosecution expert, Charles Morton, agreed that exhibits 16-A and 16-C were consistent with petitioner’s hair. Morton, however, disagreed with O’Clair’s conclusion that
In his motion for DNA testing of the hair, petitioner noted that a number of courts have approved the use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis on pubic hair. He contended that he was entitled to an analysis of the four hair samples at issue because the hairs were the only physical evidence connecting him to the crime. He argued that the testing would “raise a reasonable probability that [his] verdict or sentence would have been more favorable” had such testing been available at the time of his trial.
The prosecution argued that petitioner had failed to satisfy section 1405’s requirements that the movant make a prima facie showing of the materiality of the evidence sought to be tested, and had also failed to meet the threshold for reasonable probability. (§ 1405, subd. (f)(4), (5).) The prosecution contended that the prima facie case of materiality had not been made because “[i]f the pubic hairs were tested and found not to have Petitioner’s DNA, that fact alone does not prove Petitioner’s innocence because of the vast array of other evidence linking him to the murder .... If DNA analysis reveals Petitioner as the DNA donor on the pubic hairs, it will further inculpate him. If DNA testing excludes Petitioner as a donor—the only other possibility—it will provide no new information.” Similarly, the prosecution argued that the evidence supporting petitioner’s conviction was such that, even if DNA testing revealed he was not the DNA donor of the pubic hairs, there was no reasonable probability that he would have obtained a more favorable result had the testing been available at the time of his trial.
At the hearing of petitioner’s motion, the trial court agreed with the prosecution and denied the motion. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for writ of mandate or prohibition. We issued an order to show cause.
H. ANALYSIS
A. Relevant Subdivisions of Section 1405
For our purposes, the relevant subdivisions of section 1405 are subdivisions (a), (f), and (j). Subdivision (a) provides: “A person who was convicted of a felony and is currently serving a term of imprisonment may make a written motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case, for performance of forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.”
Section 1405, subdivision (j) authorizes appellate review of the order granting or denying the motion exclusively through a “petition for writ of mandate or prohibition filed by the person seeking DNA testing, the district attorney, or the Attorney General. ... In a noncapital case, the petition for writ of mandate or prohibition shall be filed in the court of appeal. In a capital case, the petition shall be filed in the California Supreme Court.”
Our disposition of this matter turns upon the meaning of these subdivisions. As to section 1405, subdivision (j), we must determine the applicable standard of review of the trial court’s ruling on a motion for DNA testing. We must also determine the meaning of the materiality requirement in subdivision (f)(4) and what constitutes a “reasonable probability” for purposes of subdivision (f)(5) of section 1405.
B. The Standard of Review
The People argue that the correct standard of review in this case is for abuse of discretion while petitioner contends that the trial court’s ruling should be reviewed for substantial evidence. The two cases cited by petitioner in support of his claim, however, involve statutes very different from section 1405; in each of those cases, evidence was presented to the trial court that the petitioner subsequently attacked in a writ proceeding as insufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. (Murray v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 611, 618 [284 P.2d 1] [review of affidavit in support of civil arrest]; Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 210-211 [114 Cal.Rptr. 743] [review of affidavits in support of motion to quash summons].) These opinions do not, therefore, support petitioner’s claim that substantial evidence is the applicable standard of review for denial of a motion under section 1405.
Our conclusion is supported by the apparent intent of the Legislature in enacting section 1405, as revealed by the legislative history, which was to provide defendants with a narrowly circumscribed opportunity to develop new evidence in preparation for a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence. (Sen. Bill No. 1342 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.).) Not only does the purpose of section 1405 directly relate to new trial motions on this ground, but it is also analogous to section 1181, subdivision 8, which authorizes such new trials where new evidence has been discovered. There, as here, the moving party must fulfill certain preconditions to warrant a new trial on this ground, including showing that the newly discovered evidence is material and is “ ‘ “such as to render a different result probable on a retrial of the cause (People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 529, 851 P.2d 811].) It is settled law that the standard of review for an order denying a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence is abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
“Although mandamus does not generally lie to control the exercise of judicial discretion, the writ will issue ‘where, under the facts, that discretion can be exercised in only one way.’ [Citations.]” (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205 [211 Cal.Rptr. 398, 695 P.2d 695].) “Mandate lies
C. “Materiality" and “Reasonable Probability”
As noted, the trial court agreed with the prosecution that the results of DNA testing were not material and that, in any event, there was no reasonable probability that petitioner would have obtained a more favorable result in light of all the evidence adduced at trial against him, even assuming the testing showed the hairs in question were not his. In order to evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must first interpret the meaning of the materiality requirement in section 1405, subdivision (f)(4) and the reasonable probability standard in section 1405, subdivision (f)(5).
“It is the duty of this court in construing a statute to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” (People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 419, 425 [250 Cal.Rptr. 598, 758 P.2d 1128].) “To determine the meaning of a statute, we seek to discern the sense of its language, in full context, in light of its purpose.” (People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 45 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 37 P.3d 403].)
Section 1405, subdivision (f)(4) requires the moving defendant to make “a prima facie showing that the evidence sought to be tested is material to the issue of the convicted person’s identity as the perpetrator of . . . the crime . . . .” The statute does not define materiality. In other, analogous, criminal law contexts—those in which the defendant seeks to obtain information or contends that information to which the defendant was entitled was withheld—the test for materiality can impose a greater or lesser burden. For example, a defendant who seeks the production of personnel records of police officers that might disclose complaints against the officers for excessive force or other conduct potentially relevant to the defense must submit affidavits showing good cause for the discovery and “setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3); see Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 536-537 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305] (Pitchess).) The materiality standard is met if evidence of prior complaints is admissible or may lead to
In contrast to this low threshold of Pitchess materiality is the showing required of a defendant who contends that the prosecution withheld evidence that was both favorable to the defendant and material either on the issue of guilt or punishment. (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194] (Brady).) “Evidence is material under the Brady standard ‘if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 7-8 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202, 52 P.3d 129].)
Because, as in the Pitchess context, the materiality requirement in section 1405, subdivision (f)(4) relates to the discovery of evidence, it too requires a lesser showing of materiality by a defendant than, for example, in the Brady context, where the claim involves a species of prosecutorial misconduct and asserts a due process violation. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that only a prima facie showing of materiality is required by section 1405. We conclude, therefore, that the moving defendant is required only to demonstrate that the DNA testing he or she seeks would be relevant to the issue of identity, rather than dispositive of it. That is, the defendant is not required to show a favorable test would conclusively establish his or her innocence. It would be sufficient for the defendant to show that the identity of the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the crime was a controverted issue as to which the results of DNA testing would be relevant evidence.
This reading of section 1405, subdivision (f)(4) is supported by the legislative history of section 1405. The analysis for Senate Bill No. 1342 notes that the Attorney General preferred “that the standard for testing should be that it is dispositive, not merely . . . relevant, on the question of innocence. The author believes that this proposed standard is too narrow and in those cases where it is not dispositive of the evidence a court can decide its relevancy.” (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1342 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 30, 2000, p. 13.)
However, a prima facie showing of materiality does not, by itself, require the trial court to grant the motion for DNA testing. Once this showing has been made, section 1405, subdivision (f)(5) directs the trial court to further assess whether, “in light of all the evidence,” the DNA results would
“ ‘Generally, “[w]here the language of a statute uses terms that have been judicially construed, ‘ “the presumption is almost irresistible” ’ that the terms have been used ‘ “in the precise and technical sense which had been placed upon them by the courts.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 231 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228].)
The parties agree that the term “reasonable probability” has been the subject of prior judicial construction in other contexts relevant to our analysis. Petitioner cites the use of the “reasonable probability” standard in connection with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052] (Strickland)) and the assessment of prejudice for state law error (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [299 P.2d 243] (Watson)). Under Strickland, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate “(1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been more favorable to defendant, i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (In re Ross (1995) 10 Cal.4th 184, 201 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 892 P.2d 1287].) Under the Watson standard, prejudicial error is shown where “ ‘ “after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,” [the reviewing court] is of the “opinion” that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.’ [Citation.] ‘We have made clear that a “probability” in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility. ’ [Citation.]” (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 800 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 94 P.3d 513].)
We agree that in the context of section 1405, the term “reasonable probability” has the same meaning that it has in the Strickland and Watson contexts. Seizing upon part of the Strickland formulation—“a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” (Strickland., supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694)—petitioner contends that the reasonable probability requirement can be satisfied by something less than showing a different, more favorable result. Not so. “[A] defendant cannot establish a constitutional violation simply by demonstrating that an alleged trial-related error could or might have affected the jury. To establish that ineffective assistance of counsel violates the Sixth Amendment, for example, a defendant must show a
In making this assessment, however, it is important for the trial court to bear in mind that the question before it is whether the defendant is entitled to develop potentially exculpatory evidence and not whether he or she is entitled to some form of ultimate relief such as the granting of a petition for habeas corpus based on that evidence. As the Ninth Circuit observed in an analogous decision, “Obtaining post-conviction access to evidence is not habeas relief.” (Osborne v. Dist. Atty’s Office for Third Judicial (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1118, 1132 [defendant has limited due process right to semen and two hairs for postconviction DNA testing].) Therefore, the trial court does not, and should not, decide whether, assuming a DNA test result favorable to the defendant, that evidence in and of itself would ultimately require some form of relief from the conviction.
D. Application
Applying the foregoing principles to the case before us, we agree with petitioner that he established that the DNA test would have been relevant to the issue of the identity of the perpetrator.
We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion because it “believe[d] that there was a substantial amount of other evidence linking him to this crime,” a statement which, in context, constitutes a finding that petitioner failed to establish the reasonable probability requirement. Petitioner emphasizes that the hair evidence was the only physical evidence linking him to the commission of the offenses against the victim. The trial court, however, found that this evidence was not “conclusive” on the issue of guilt and that the defense substantially weakened whatever value the hair evidence had through effective cross-examination of the prosecution’s experts and use of its own experts. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by so finding.
On the first point, as defense counsel himself noted during his argument at the hearing on his motion, the prosecution’s two experts, O’Clair and Morton, could not even agree between themselves which of the pubic hairs was consistent with petitioner’s hair. While O’Clair opined that four hairs, 4-A,
These points were driven home to the jury by effective cross-examination in which, as the trial court also noted, “the defense did a good job of downplaying the significance of hair evidence.” For example, the defense got O’Clair to acknowledge that hair analysis involves “quite a bit of subjectivity”; that it was not the same as fingerprint analysis; and that it was not uncommon for experts to disagree. The prosecution’s second expert, Morton, was also forced to acknowledge the limits of hair analysis on cross-examination when he testified that the most that could be said about a hair sample was that it was “consistent” with an individual’s hair and “could be from that individual.” He admitted he could not say that the hair samples belonged to defendant. He, like O’Clair, also conceded that hair analysis was a “subjective process” and two competent experts looking at the same sample could reach different conclusions.
In addition to effectively cross-examining the prosecution’s hair analysis experts, the defense’s two experts rejected the conclusion of the prosecution’s experts. Stephan Schliebe testified that the squalid condition of the bathroom where the victim was murdered, and from which the hairs were collected, diluted their value. He also pointed out that hair could easily be transferred from one place to another. This latter observation was related to evidence that petitioner had been a sometime visitor to the victim’s residence, the implication being that any hair identified as consistent with his could have been deposited during an earlier visit. Finally, contrary to the testimony of the prosecution’s experts, Schliebe testified that none of the four hair exhibits in question, 4-A and 16-A through 16-C, were consistent with petitioner’s hair. Additionally, a second defense forensic expert, Peter Barnett, also testified that the four samples were not consistent with petitioner’s hair.
Petitioner emphasizes probability testimony by the prosecution’s expert O’Clair based on a study referred to as the Gaudette study. According to O’Clair, this study indicated that the probability that pubic hair consistent with one individual could be matched to another individual was 1 in 800. Petitioner claims that the prosecutor mischaracterized this testimony to argue that the hair analysis was more conclusive than indicated by the experts’ testimony.
In short, as the trial court observed, the hair evidence was, at most, simply one piece of evidence tending to show guilt and it was fiercely disputed by the defense to the point that it may well have had little significance in the jury’s determination of guilt or sentence. By contrast, the evidence that petitioner was the perpetrator was strong. As we observed in petitioner’s automatic appeal, this evidence included, in addition to the hair evidence, “defendant’s statement to a witness evincing awareness that the victim, whom he knew, was alone on the night she was murdered; . . . defendant’s statements in the immediate aftermath of the murder in which he either admitted killing the victim or revealed details about the murder that had not been released to the public; . . . defendant’s flight from the scene the day after the murder; . . . defendant’s shifting stories in statements he made to the police culminating in an admission—quickly retracted—that he had committed the murder; . . . defendant’s statement to a fellow inmate that he had murdered Holley; . . . [and] Steven Brown’s subsequent attempt to commit a similar crime against another victim.” (People v. Richardson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 971.)
Petitioner attacks or minimizes the significance of each category of evidence. As we observed at the outset, however, our role is not to review the record of the trial de novo but to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion based on its assessment of the record.
We find no more convincing his argument that DNA evidence, if produced, might have caused at least one juror during the penalty phase to decline to vote for the death penalty. Here, the jurors learned at the penalty phase that, in addition to the brutal circumstances of the crimes of which they had just convicted him, petitioner had forcibly raped a 16-year-old girl in concert with two others; had, while in jail for that offense, forced a fellow inmate to perform sexual acts on him and others; and had committed battery on an eight-month-old infant by squeezing his scrotum so hard the infant had to be hospitalized. In light of this additional evidence, we are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in impliedly finding it is not reasonably probable that the DNA evidence would have altered the outcome of the penalty phase.
III. DISPOSITION
The order to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied.
Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We take judicial notice of the record in the related appeal. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
To the extent it is necessary to refer to factual matters adduced at petitioner’s trial, we cite the statement of facts in the related automatic appeal because it was this same evidence the trial court was required to examine in evaluating whether to grant petitioner’s motion. (§ 1405, subd. (f)(5).)
In any event, petitioner is wrong if he believes that the substantial evidence standard of review is more favorable to his arguments. Under that well-established standard, the reviewing court “will not disturb the implied findings of fact made by a trial court in support of an
Petitioner also renews the claim he advanced in his automatic appeal that the admission of this testimony was error, and that the prosecutor’s use of the study in closing argument was misconduct, and petitioner generally attacks the use of hair analysis evidence. This proceeding is not
The prosecutor argued that Brown’s unsuccessful attempt to commit a similar crime—the rape and drowning of a female victim—tended to show a common plan and that the Holley murder had required two participants.
Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, there is no requirement in section 1405 that the trial court make on-the-record findings to support its ruling. To the extent petitioner claims that the DNA testing should have been ordered because the results might be useful to him on habeas corpus or for purposes of executive clemency, we reject the claim. Section 1405 does not require the trial court to order DNA testing because it might be helpful in these contexts but only where the conditions of subdivision (f) are fulfilled.