People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 2/10/23 P. v. Wilson CA3
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, C093944
v. (Super. Ct. No. 20FE001859)
STEVEN WILSON,
ON TRANSFER
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Steven Wilson stabbed and killed Lora Hoagland on the American
River bike trail. A jury convicted him of first degree premeditated and deliberate murder
and the trial court sentenced him to 75 years to life plus 11 years.
In his original appeal, defendant asserted the following contentions: (1) the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s uncharged 2002
homicide, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a video of a rap song
defendant performed, (3) the cumulative prejudice from the improper admission of
evidence requires reversal, (4) there is insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of
premeditation and deliberation, and (5) defendant is entitled to one additional day of
1
custody credit. In addition, the People asserted (6) the abstract of judgment must be
corrected because it does not accurately reflect the judgment imposed by the trial court.
After this court modified and affirmed the judgment and remanded for amendment
and correction of the abstract of judgment, the California Supreme Court granted review
and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and
reconsider the cause in light of Assembly Bill No. 2799 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2022, ch. 973).
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of
defendant’s uncharged act, any error in admitting the rap song was harmless, there is no
accumulated prejudice requiring reversal, the evidence was sufficient to prove
premeditation and deliberation, defendant is entitled to one additional day of presentence
custody credit, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to properly reflect the
judgment.
We will modify the judgment to add one more day of presentence custody credit,
affirm the judgment as modified, and remand for amendment and correction of the
abstract of judgment.
BACKGROUND
As defendant does not raise any issue implicating his identity as the killer, we will
focus on evidence of defendant’s actions and mental state.
Jessica Peckham was the People’s chief witness in this case. She knew defendant
well and witnessed the killing.
On the night of January 26, 2020, defendant and Peckham went for a walk on the
American River bike trail. Hoagland walked toward them in the dark. She was naked
and wet. Defendant acted concerned and asked her if she was okay. But Hoagland was
not making sense. Defendant put his trench coat on her, but he led her in a direction
away from where there was a fire station or where she could get some help. Defendant
2
carried Hoagland for a stretch and put her down under a railroad trestle. Peckham asked
Hoagland if she could help her, but Hoagland said she only wanted defendant’s help.
Defendant knelt or sat behind Hoagland, and she leaned back against him.
Defendant reached behind his back, drew a long knife, and stabbed Hoagland in the chest
and then in the neck.
Peckham walked away, and defendant eventually caught up to her. Defendant told
Peckham he stabbed Hoagland in the neck after Peckham left. They walked to
Peckham’s house, where defendant washed blood off the knife and left Peckham’s house
the next morning.
Two days after the killing, defendant returned to Peckham’s house. Peckham
surreptitiously recorded defendant. They discussed the killing of Hoagland and news
reports. Defendant told Peckham that he had killed once before when he was 19 years
old. He and two other people were riding around in Reno, Nevada, and picked up a girl.
Defendant killed her the same way he killed Hoagland. On that occasion, however, he
disassembled the knife and scattered it along the highway on the way back to
Sacramento. He also burned his clothing, except for his shoes. Peckham asked
defendant if he planned to do it again, and he replied that he did, but not in the near
future, and he planned to do it in different locations. He said, “We’re long past me lying
to you about the bodies that I racked up.” Concerning the killing of Hoagland, defendant
admitted it was “straight up homicide” and that his victim “type” was female. Defendant
also admitted to Peckham that he is a serial killer. He watches people, pictures them
dead, and fantasizes about killing. He wished he had cut Hoagland open and dissected
her. And he admired the work of Jack the Ripper.
Peckham reported the killing the same day she recorded the conversation with
defendant. Hoagland’s body was found nude and covered with blood. She died from
multiple stab wounds.
3
A jury convicted defendant of the first degree murder of Hoagland (Pen. Code,
§ 187, subd. (a))1 and found true an allegation that defendant used a deadly weapon
(§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). In addition, the trial court found true allegations that defendant
had two prior serious felony convictions—a 2005 robbery and a 2011 robbery. The trial
court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 75 years to life (§ 187, subd. (a)),
with consecutive determinate terms of one year for the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)) and 10 years for the two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667,
subd. (a)(1)).
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of
defendant’s uncharged homicide committed in Reno, Nevada, when he was 19 years old.
He claims the evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352
and that admission of the evidence violated his due process rights.
Before trial, the People moved to admit evidence of defendant’s murder of a
woman in Reno, referencing 2002 or 2004 in relation to the crime. The People made an
offer of proof that defendant told Peckham about a murder he committed in Reno when
he was 19 years old, about 15 years before the murder in this case. He and two
accomplices picked up a female prostitute and stabbed her the same way he killed
Hoagland. After killing the prostitute, defendant disassembled the knife and scattered it
along the freeway on the drive back to Sacramento. The People informed the trial court
that a body had not been discovered in connection with defendant’s statements about the
murder in Reno. The trial court admitted the uncharged act evidence but instructed the
jury it could consider that evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
4
defendant had an intent to kill and only if the People proved the uncharged act occurred
by a preponderance of the evidence.
While evidence of a defendant’s character is generally inadmissible to prove a
defendant’s criminal propensity, evidence a defendant committed an uncharged act may
be admitted if it is relevant to prove a material fact, such as the defendant’s intent. (Evid.
Code, § 1101, subds. (a) & (b); People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 191 (Fayed).)
Considerations include whether (1) the fact to be proved is material, (2) the uncharged act
tends to prove the fact, and (3) the evidence should nevertheless be excluded based on
rule or policy. (Fayed, at p. 191.) We review the trial court’s admission of uncharged act
evidence for abuse of discretion. (Id. at pp. 189-190.)
The fact to be proved by the uncharged act evidence in this case was defendant’s
intent to kill, including premeditation and deliberation. Defendant’s not-guilty plea
placed this element in dispute, and the People were obligated to present evidence proving
it. (People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1243 (Steele).) Thus, evidence of
defendant’s intent to kill, including premeditation and deliberation, was material.
Furthermore, the uncharged act evidence tended to prove intent to kill,
premeditation, and deliberation. “[T]he more often one kills, especially under similar
circumstances, the more reasonable the inference the killing was intended and
premeditated. [Citations.]” (Steele, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1244.)
“The least degree of similarity (between the uncharged act and the charged
offense) is required in order to prove intent. [Citation.] ‘[T]he recurrence of a similar
result . . . tends (increasingly with each instance) to negative accident or inadvertence or
self-defense or good faith or other innocent mental state, and tends to establish . . . the
presence of the normal, i.e., criminal, intent accompanying such an act . . . .’ [Citation.]
In order to be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently
similar to support the inference that the defendant ‘ “probably harbor[ed] the same intent
5
in each instance.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380,
402.)
Concerning the similarity between the uncharged act and the murder of Hoagland,
defendant focuses on the differences. He notes that in Reno he acted in concert and
subsequently destroyed the evidence. He further argues the uncharged act occurred about
15 years before the instant crime and was therefore remote in time. But the similarities
were sufficient for the trial court to exercise its discretion and admit the uncharged act
evidence. In each instance, defendant met a vulnerable female and soon thereafter killed
her with a knife.
Defendant asserts there was nothing to corroborate his statement that he
committed the uncharged act. But that circumstance did not preclude admissibility.
Rather, it went to the People’s burden to prove that the uncharged act occurred.
Certainly, defendant’s statement was enough to support a jury finding that he committed
the uncharged act. As the trial court instructed the jury, “[t]he testimony of only one
witness can prove any fact.” (CALCRIM No. 301.)
Because the uncharged act evidence tended to prove defendant’s intent,
premeditation, and deliberation in this case, it was admissible unless a rule or policy
required exclusion of the evidence. (Fayed, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 191.) Defendant
claims the uncharged act evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Code
section 352 because the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its
probative value.2 We disagree.
2 Evidence Code section 352 provides: “The court in its discretion may exclude
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its
admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger
of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”
6
As noted, the uncharged act evidence was probative on the issues of intent,
premeditation, and deliberation. Defendant had the opportunity to argue the differences
between the uncharged act evidence and the circumstances of this case, but the jury could
reasonably conclude that, because defendant had been faced with a similar circumstance
in the past and killed a vulnerable female, his attack of Hoagland was premeditated and
deliberate and that he intended to kill her.
While there was some danger the uncharged act evidence would inflame the jury’s
emotions, as there generally is in such a violent and serious case, the uncharged act
evidence was not so graphic or violent that the jury could not follow the trial court’s
instructions on using the evidence only to determine defendant’s mental state when he
killed Hoagland. The prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh the probative
value, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. (People v.
Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 491.)
Defendant further claims the admission of the uncharged act evidence violated his
due process rights. However, proper admission of evidence under state rules of evidence
generally does not violate a defendant’s due process rights (People v. Lucas (1995)
12 Cal.4th 415, 464), and we find no violation here.
II
Defendant next contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his due
process rights by admitting the video of a rap song defendant performed. Additionally,
defendant contends reversal is required because the Legislature recently passed Assembly
Bill No. 2799, changing the procedure and requirements for admitting evidence of
creative expression under Evidence Code section 352 and newly enacted Evidence Code
section 352.2. (Stats. 2022, ch. 973.)
Evidence Code section 352.2 became effective January 1, 2023. It provides
additional procedures and factors to consider before admitting evidence of creative
expression under Evidence Code section 352. The purpose of Evidence Code
7
section 352.2 is to guard against introducing stereotypes or activating bias and to exclude
character or propensity evidence against the defendant. (Stats. 2022, ch. 972, § 1, subd.
(b).) In addition to his contention in his original briefing that admission of the rap song
was an abuse of discretion under Evidence Code section 352, defendant claims on
transfer of this case from the California Supreme Court that Evidence Code section 352.2
must be applied to the introduction of the rap song in this case, and that such application
requires reversal.
In 2018, two years before defendant killed Hoagland, Peckham recorded a video
of defendant performing a rap song called “Psychopath” and posted it on YouTube. The
video and a transcript were shown to the jury. The lyrics of the rap song exclaimed, “I’m
a psychopath” willing to kill, and included the following: “Call me Death stroke. Keep
fucking with this guy and get your chest broke. Wide open at close range with a 12
gauge.” “I’m the demon spirit trying to take your fucking breath. I’m the man gutting
maggots with a switchblade. Then carve your back out with a rusty spade. It’s poetic
how you pussy motherfuckers scream and (unintelligible) crying (unintelligible) from this
bitch’s crime scene.” “I’m the reaper sin. That means I’m like Gordon, Dahmer and
Gacy.” “And personally I think you all need your throats slit. After all you always just a
waste of life. You know, I’d love to have come (unintelligible) meet my knife.” “That
means if I’m gonna kill someone I’m gonna do it while sober. It also means if you cross
this dude your life is over. And then I might just have myself a blood bath. I mean that
literally because I am a psychopath.”
Before trial, the People moved to admit the “Psychopath” video. The People
offered the rap song to show defendant’s intent and motive. The trial court determined
that the rap lyrics were relevant to whether defendant premeditated and deliberated
because it showed he had thought about killing. And the rap song included lyrics
concerning a knife and injury to the chest, which suggested stabbing. Based on this
reasoning, the trial court admitted the rap lyrics on the limited issue of defendant’s intent.
8
Defendant does not claim on appeal that he was not the actual killer. Moreover,
Peckham, defendant’s friend and a witness to the killing, testified at trial. There is
evidence that as she and defendant walked on the American River bike trail, Hoagland
approached them, naked and wet. Defendant at first acted as if he were concerned for
Hoagland. As Hoagland was leaning against defendant, he drew a knife and plunged it
into her chest and neck. Defendant and Peckham then walked to Peckham’s house,
where defendant washed the blood off his knife.
Two days after the killing, Peckham recorded defendant’s statements about the
killing. He talked about the news reports of Hoagland’s killing, and he told Peckham he
had killed a girl before in Reno. Defendant also told Peckham he intended to kill again.
He said, “We’re long past me lying to you about the bodies that I racked up.” And he
called the killing of Hoagland “straight up homicide.” He said he was a serial killer and
fantasized about killing. He wished he had cut Hoagland open and dissected her.
Erroneous admission of evidence is prejudicial only if it is reasonably probable the
defendant would have obtained a more favorable result if the evidence had not been
admitted. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837.) Much of what was in the rap
song was repeated to Peckham in defendant’s conversation with her after the killing.
For example, he expressed thoughts about being a serial killer and killing again and that
he fantasized about killing and wished he had dissected Hoagland. All of those
statements were properly admitted. Considering the overwhelming evidence, it is not
reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a better result if the rap song had
been excluded.
Defendant asserts admission of the rap song injected racial bias into the
proceedings, which Evidence Code section 352.2 is meant to prevent. However, the trial
court instructed the jurors not to allow any prejudice or bias to influence their decision.
We presume the jury understood and followed that instruction. (People v. Chavez (2000)
84 Cal.App.4th 25, 30-31.) And the evidence of defendant’s guilt did not present a close
9
case. Because admission of the rap song was harmless in light of the remaining evidence,
application of Evidence Code section 352.2 would not change the result.
Defendant further contends admission of the rap song violated his constitutional
due process rights. However, erroneous admission of evidence is a due process violation
only if it makes the trial fundamentally unfair. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428,
439.) The trial here was not fundamentally unfair. Overwhelming admissible evidence
supported the jury’s verdict, and admission of the rap song was cumulative to defendant’s
actions and statements evincing his intent. Accordingly, there was no due process
violation.
III
Defendant contends the cumulative prejudice from the erroneous admission of the
uncharged homicide and the rap song requires reversal. Because there was no abuse of
discretion or error in admitting the uncharged homicide, and any error in admitting the
rap song was harmless, there was no accumulated prejudice requiring reversal.
IV
Moreover, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding
of premeditation and deliberation.
“A crime is premeditated when it is considered beforehand and deliberate when
the decision to commit the crime is formed or arrived at or determined upon as a result of
careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of
action. [Citations.] [¶] The process of deliberation and premeditation does not require
any extended period of time: ‘ “The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is
the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold,
calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly . . . .” ’ [Citations.] The requirement of
premeditation and deliberation excludes acts that are the ‘result of mere unconsidered or
rash impulse hastily executed.’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 875, 886-
887.)
10
When assessing the sufficiency of evidence of premeditation and deliberation,
courts often consider three “Anderson factors”: planning, motive, and manner of killing.
(People v. Shamblin (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 10, citing People v. Anderson (1968)
70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27.) However, the Anderson factors are merely guidelines. (People v.
Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 663.) “ ‘A senseless, random, but premeditated, killing
supports a verdict of first degree murder.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489,
519.) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(Gonzalez, at p. 653.)
Contrary to defendant’s arguments, there was evidence of all three Anderson
factors in this case, thus supporting the jury’s implicit finding of premeditation and
deliberation.
As to planning, the evidence established defendant fantasized about killing and
wanted to kill more, specifically females. He carried a large knife to the American River
bike trail at night and found a vulnerable victim. Instead of escorting Hoagland to safety,
such as to the fire station, he further isolated her under a railroad trestle.
As to motive, defendant desired to be a serial killer. Killing Hoagland satisfied
that desire, or at least helped to achieve his goal.
As to manner of killing, defendant plunged a large knife into Hoagland’s chest and
neck. There can be no reasonable doubt he decided to kill her and deliberately chose a
manner likely to achieve that outcome.
Having found all three Anderson factors, we conclude the evidence, considered in
the light most favorable to the judgment, reflected a killing that was considered
beforehand with careful weighing and consideration of the course of action. Defendant
wanted to kill, prepared to kill, found a potential victim, isolated her, and took action to
11
end her life. Defendant’s contention that the evidence of premeditation and deliberation
was insufficient to sustain the verdict is without merit.
V
Defendant contends, and the People agree, he is entitled to one additional day of
custody credit.
A defendant is entitled to presentence custody credit for all days, including partial
days, in custody. (People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48.) The trial
court awarded defendant 437 days of presentence custody credit. Defendant was arrested
on January 28, 2020, and his sentencing was on April 9, 2021. Including both the day of
arrest and the day of sentencing, that is a span of 438 days. Defendant is therefore
entitled to modification of the judgment to include one more day of presentence custody
credit.
VI
The People argue the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it does not
accurately reflect the judgment imposed by the trial court.
As noted, the trial court imposed both indeterminate and determinate terms at
sentencing. But the record on appeal contains an abstract of judgment reflecting only the
indeterminate term of 75 years to life. The matter must be remanded for preparation of a
proper abstract of judgment that reflects the determinate term. (See People v. Zackery
(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388 [abstract of judgment must accurately reflect judgment
orally pronounced].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to award one additional day of presentence custody
credit for a total of 438 days. The judgment is affirmed as modified. The matter is
remanded with directions that the trial court amend the abstract of judgment to reflect
the judgment as modified, and to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect
12
the sentence orally imposed. The trial court is directed to send the amended and
corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
RENNER, J.
/S/
EARL, J.
13