In re Van Houten

Filed 5/30/23
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re B320098
LESLIE VAN HOUTEN (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. A253156)
on Habeas Corpus.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of habeas
corpus, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Petition granted.
Nancy L. Tetreault and Rich Pfeiffer for Petitioner.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay,
Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone, Jennifer L.
Heinisch, and Jennifer O. Cano, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Respondent.
____________________________
Leslie Van Houten petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant
of parole. Van Houten is serving concurrent sentences of seven
years to life for the 1969 murders of Rosemary and Leno
La Bianca, which she committed with other members of a cult led
by Charles Manson. This is the fourth time a governor has
reversed Van Houten’s parole.1
In his reversal decision, the Governor found inadequate
Van Houten’s explanation of how she fell under Manson’s
influence and engaged in her life crimes. The Governor further
found that recent statements Van Houten made were
inconsistent with statements she made at the time of the killings,
indicating “gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.”
Finally, although Van Houten’s most recent criminal risk
assessment found her at low risk for violent recidivism, the
Governor found several “historical factors” identified in that
assessment “remain salient” to Van Houten’s current
dangerousness, such as her prior acts of violence, traumatic
experiences, and substance abuse.
We review the Governor’s decision under the highly
deferential “some evidence” standard, in which even a modicum
of evidence is sufficient to uphold the reversal. Even so, we hold
on this record, there is no evidence to support the Governor’s
conclusions.
Van Houten provided extensive explanation as to the
causative factors leading to her involvement with Manson and
commission of the murders, and the record does not support a
1 Van Houten has since been granted parole a fifth time,
and the Governor reversed that grant in 2022.
2
conclusion that there are hidden factors for which Van Houten
has failed to account. The Governor’s refusal to accept
Van Houten’s explanation amounts to unsupported intuition.
The Governor’s finding of inconsistencies between Van Houten’s
statements now and at the time of the murders fails to account
for the decades of therapy, self-help programming, and reflection
Van Houten has undergone in the past 50 years. The historical
factors identified in the criminal risk assessment are the sort of
immutable circumstances our Supreme Court has held cannot
support a finding of current dangerousness when there is
extensive evidence of rehabilitation and other strong indicators of
parole suitability, all of which Van Houten has demonstrated.
Accordingly, we grant Van Houten’s petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Van Houten’s background and commitment offenses
We derive this summary from In re Van Houten (2004)
116 Cal.App.4th 339, 343.2 We provide further detail, post, in our
summary of the record from Van Houten’s 2020 parole
proceedings.
Van Houten grew up in Southern California. Her parents
divorced when she was 14. She lived with her mother until she
graduated high school, then lived with her father and stepmother
for a year while she attended Sawyer College and earned a legal
2 In re Van Houten addressed the trial court’s grant of
Van Houten’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after she was
denied parole in 2000. (Supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 342, 347.)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. (Id. at p. 367.)
3
secretary certificate. (In re Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th
at p. 343.)
Van Houten began using drugs at age 14, including
marijuana, methedrine, mescaline, benzedrine, and LSD.3 At 17
she became pregnant and had an abortion.4 (In re Van Houten,
supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 343.)
In 1968, after receiving her legal secretary certificate,
Van Houten traveled up and down the California coast for several
months. She heard about a commune at the Spahn Ranch in
Chatsworth, California established by Charles Manson and
began living there. (In re Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at
p. 343.)
Although at first Van Houten found the commune “idyllic,”
there soon emerged a “sinister side” of what was called the
Manson “Family.” (In re Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th
at p. 344.) “Manson dominated and manipulated the members of
the Family. [Citation.] Within the context of isolation,
dependence, fear, drugs, sex, and indoctrination of the Family
experience, the members became convinced of Manson’s peculiar
apocalyptic fantasies and goals.” (Ibid.) Manson believed in “an
impending bloody, civilization-ending, worldwide race war
between Blacks and Whites,” in which “the Blacks would
succeed” but “the Family would emerge . . . to take control and
restore order. Manson came to believe that he would have to
3According to her 2018 comprehensive risk assessment,
Van Houten stated she started using LSD at age 15.
4 In re Van Houten stated Van Houten “either miscarried
or had an abortion.” (Supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 343.) The
record from Van Houten’s 2020 parole hearing makes clear she
had an abortion.
4
precipitate the race war by murdering Whites . . . in such a way
that Blacks would be blamed for the murders.” (Id. at p. 344,
fn. 1.)
During the evening of August 8 or the early morning of
August 9, 1969, members of the Manson Family, including
Patricia Krenwinkel and Charles Tex Watson, entered the
residence of Sharon Tate Polanski and murdered Polanski,
Voitcek Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, and Steven
Parent. (In re Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 344.)
Van Houten was not present and did not participate in these
murders, although when she heard about them the next day, she
“felt ‘left out’ and wanted to be included next time.” (Id. at
p. 345.)
On August 9 or 10, 1969, Manson, Van Houten, and other
members of the Family, including Watson and Krenwinkel, drove
around Los Angeles “following Manson’s apparently random
directions for about four hours selecting and discarding possible
victims.” They stopped near the home of Leno and Rosemary
La Bianca. Manson and Watson went inside and surprised and
tied up the La Biancas. Manson then returned to the car and
told Van Houten and Krenwinkel “to go into the house and do
what Watson told them to.” (In re Van Houten, supra,
116 Cal.App.4th at p. 345.)
Inside the home, Watson told Van Houten and
Krenwinkel to take Mrs. La Bianca into the bedroom and kill her.
Van Houten placed a pillowcase over Mrs. La Bianca’s head and
secured it with a lamp cord wrapped around Mrs. La Bianca’s
neck. Mrs. La Bianca heard Watson stabbing her husband and
struggled with Van Houten, who wrestled her onto the bed and
pinned her down. Krenwinkel stabbed Mrs. La Bianca with a
5
knife she had taken from the kitchen. (In re Van Houten, supra,
116 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.)
Van Houten called for Watson, who came into the bedroom
and stabbed Mrs. La Bianca eight times with a bayonet. Watson
then handed Van Houten a knife “and told her to do something.”
Van Houten suspected Mrs. La Bianca was dead at this point but
“ ‘didn’t know for sure.’ ” Van Houten stabbed Mrs. La Bianca
between 14 and 16 times. (In re Van Houten, supra,
116 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.)
After the stabbing, Van Houten “wiped away the
perpetrators’ fingerprints while Krenwinkel wrote in blood on
various surfaces in the residence.” Thereafter, Van Houten hid
for over two months at a “remote location” until she was arrested
on November 25, 1969. (In re Van Houten, supra,
116 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.)
A jury convicted Van Houten in 1971 of two counts of first
degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.
The jury imposed a death sentence. The Court of Appeal
reversed the judgment because Van Houten’s attorney had
disappeared during the trial. Van Houten was retried and the
jury deadlocked. In a third trial, a jury again convicted
Van Houten of two counts of first degree murder and one count of
conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court
imposed concurrent life sentences with the possibility of parole.
(In re Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 347.)
2. Prior parole reversals
The Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found
Van Houten suitable for parole in 2016, 2017, and 2019.
Governor Brown reversed the first two grants, and Governor
6
Newsom reversed the third. Van Houten unsuccessfully
challenged the Governors’ reversals in court.
3. 2018 comprehensive risk assessment
A forensic psychologist prepared a comprehensive risk
assessment (CRA) of Van Houten in the fall of 2018, following an
interview with Van Houten and a review of her confidential file.
Because the Board relied on the 2018 CRA in granting
Van Houten parole in 2020, and the Governor also referred to it
in his reversal decision, we summarize it in detail. Our summary
does not correspond to the order in which the CRA presented the
information.
a. Child, adolescent, and adult development
The CRA described the evaluator’s interview with
Van Houten about her life leading up to her involvement with
Manson and the commitment offenses. Van Houten stated her
parents’ divorce when she was 14 “was challenging for her. She
felt anger towards her mother and also felt a sense of
abandonment. She began to associate with kids from other
single-mother homes, something that was not common at the
time.”
Van Houten met her first boyfriend, “Bobby,” at 15.
Van Houten stated, “ ‘It all happened after dad left. It’s sort of
like me looking for stability, caring, love.’ ” Bobby introduced her
to LSD. She also began using alcohol and marijuana. Eventually
she was using LSD and marijuana on a daily basis, and in high
school her drug dealers were her closest friends.
At some point, Van Houten and Bobby ran away from home
to San Francisco, but the communes would not let them stay
7
because they were too young. Van Houten then discovered she
was pregnant by Bobby, and she told her parents.
According to Van Houten, her father tried to figure out how
Bobby and Van Houten could raise the baby, but Van Houten’s
mother said, “ ‘ “You are not going to have this child, you’re going
to go to college.” ’ ” Van Houten stated, “ ‘[A]t that point, I really,
really wanted the child . . . and the fact that there was no
negotiating with mom . . . mom was a hard force to rec[k]on with,
she ran the roost.’ ” Bobby’s mother invited Van Houten and
Bobby to live with her, “ ‘[b]ut, for some reason in my mother’s
heritage she was very anti-Catholic, and she wouldn’t even
consider it.’ ”
Van Houten’s mother arranged an illegal abortion.
Van Houten described the abortion: “ ‘It was in my bedroom . . .
some woman came up from Mexico. She told me to just be quiet
and not wake my brother or sister.’ ” Van Houten was not
medicated during the procedure. Van Houten stated she “ ‘shut
down,’ emotionally” after the abortion. The CRA evaluator wrote
that Van Houten “was tearful as she spoke of the abortion and
what ‘might have been.’ ” Years later, while incarcerated,
Van Houten had a “ ‘wonderful psychologist’ ” who helped her
“process many of the residual emotions” stemming from the
abortion.
Van Houten and Bobby became involved in the self-
realization movement, and would sit for hours meditating with
one another. They broke up sometime after high school
graduation and Van Houten moved in with her father.
Van Houten’s mother wanted her to go to college, but “ ‘there was
no way I’d agree to anything she said.’ ”
8
After graduation Van Houten was sober for a time,
something the self-realization foundation promoted. Eventually,
however, she got back in touch with Bobby and her old friends
and began using drugs again. After finishing her courses at
Sawyer Business School, she traveled with a friend to San
Francisco, where she met two members of the Manson Family,
Robert Beausoleil and Catherine Share. Share told Van Houten
of “ ‘this wonderful place,’ ” presumably Spahn Ranch, and
Van Houten, who “ ‘had no idea what I would do with my life,’ ”
ended up driving up and down the coast with Share, Beausoleil,
and another person, “ ‘going from commune to commune,
panhandling.’ ” Van Houten “was intimate with [Beausoleil] and
explained that the commune lifestyle called for multiple
partners.” Van Houten said, “ ‘I was not taking care of myself. I
was numb after the abortion, I can’t pinpoint emotions . . . .”
Van Houten said life at Spahn Ranch at first “ ‘seemed fun,
but underneath all the freedom was a really strict doctrine,’ ”
which she did not realize until much later, after she had been
incarcerated for several years. Van Houten said she was
“ ‘indoctrinated’ ” at the ranch. If she said anything about her
past, she would be mocked. She had to wear different clothes
every day, because nothing could be hers. Manson “ ‘would do
long length[y] tirades about our parents, and how they destroyed
us. Everything that was intuitive in me was blocked by self-
criticism. If I thought, “. . . that didn’t make sense,” [Manson
would] begin this thing, like “no sense makes sense . . . .” He
knew what he was doing.’ ”
Van Houten said, “ ‘I became indoctrinated slowly. I was
broken enough that when someone said, “You need to come with
me, [Manson is] special, he’s like Christ reincarnated,” I was so
9
broken, that I wanted to belong and I wanted to belong to
something that wasn’t connected to my past. And I allowed it to
happen. I didn’t realize . . . that this guy is messing with my
head.’ ” Van Houten “explained that she realized how far she had
allowed [Manson] to ‘get in (her) head’ once she started to regain
her identity (after she was incarcerated).” Van Houten described
two other women “ ‘from the ranch’ ” being placed in prison with
her who “ ‘were still doing “the talk,” ’ ” and Van Houten said to
fellow inmate Krenwinkel, “ ‘ “I’m different . . . I’m not doing
this.” ’ ”
Prior to the commitment offenses, Van Houten was
arrested three times for grand theft auto and once for burglary.
According to the CRA, she was released following two of the
arrests for insufficient evidence, and the record did not indicate
the disposition of the other two arrests.
b. The commitment offenses
The evaluator asked Van Houten to discuss the
commitment offenses. Van Houten explained that in the winter
of 1969, Manson “ ‘said things had changed and there would be a
revolution.’ ” He spoke of “ ‘violence’ ” and began to prepare his
followers “ ‘to be living in a constant state of fear,’ ” including by
having them sneak up on one another “ ‘so our awareness was
up.’ ”
At the time, Van Houten was motivated by a desire to show
Manson she “ ‘was completely committed to him and his cause.’ ”
“ ‘I felt I really needed to go . . . had to kill them for the beginning
of the revolution.’ ” Asked why she felt it was important to
demonstrate her commitment to Manson, Van Houten said, “ ‘He
always made me feel that I wasn’t quite measuring up to what he
had hoped for and I needed to have him believe that in me, the
10
group, I needed to belong, it’s an embarrassing thing to say at
this age, how weak I was and how needy I was.’ ”
At the time, Van Houten believed she “ ‘had been chosen to
be near this guy who had this vision and reincarnation . . . and
made me feel I was obligated because of what I’d been given by
him. He’d tell us, “If you leave, when the revolution comes,
they’ll do all this stuff to you and you’re only safe with me.” ’ ”
Van Houten explained this is why she did not leave Manson
when the opportunity presented itself, including when a biker
Manson had thrown off the ranch returned and tried to get
Van Houten to leave with him. Van Houten said, “ ‘[I]t was like
my feet were stuck in dried cement. I was so afraid to go. I said,
“I can’t,” and [the biker] just took off.’ ”
Describing the night of the murders, she said, “ ‘I was
told to follow everything Tex [Watson] said.’ ” She and
Krenwinkel took knives from the La Biancas’ kitchen and
took Mrs. La Bianca into the bedroom. Van Houten held
Mrs. La Bianca down on the bed. Van Houten did not recall
putting a pillow case on Mrs. La Bianca’s head, “ ‘but there’s [a]
good possibility I could have.’ ” When Mrs. La Bianca heard her
husband dying in the next room, killed by Watson, she yelled out
for him as Van Houten tried to hold her down. Krenwinkel
stabbed Mrs. La Bianca and the knife bent on her collarbone.
Van Houten “ ‘ran to the door of the bedroom, said, “We can’t do
it. We can’t kill her.” [Watson] came into the bedroom,
[Krenwinkel] went into the living room, I stood at the doorway,
none of this was conscious, I was running on fear. Tex had
stabbed her. I assumed she was dead. That’s been an issue of
controversy for Board hearings. She could have been alive, but I
assumed she was dead[.] Tex said, “Do something,” and handed
11
me a knife. So, I stabbed her in the lower torso 16 times. It was
a horrible, predatory feeling.’ ”
The evaluator asked Van Houten “how she felt,” and
Van Houten stated, “ ‘I felt horrible, aggressive, predatory . . .
after that, I began to wipe fingerprints.” Krenwinkel painted the
walls with blood while Watson took a shower. At Watson’s
instructions, Van Houten changed into some of Mrs. La Bianca’s
clothes. The group took some milk and cheese from the
refrigerator and hitchhiked back to the ranch.
Van Houten stated that at the time, “she believed what
they were doing was necessary and that although she was sorry
that the victims had to die, she believed it was ‘necessary for the
greater good, the revolution.’ ” Van Houten noted, “ ‘It was in the
record that I told [a 13-year-old at the ranch] that the more I did
it the more fun I had[.] I don’t deny it, but I don’t remember.’ ”5
Asked about the “causative factors” leading to the
commitment offense, Van Houten stated, “ ‘I feel that before my
dad left, I was in a structure that really worked for me, and when
dad left it shifted it, and it’s not like dad leaving in ‘80 or ‘90; dad
leaving in 1965 changed a lot in our small town. That didn’t
happen that often. It created a window for me where I began to
move into a different set of kids, mostly single-parent kids, that
led me to curiosity about drugs, led me to my boyfriend, and the
5 According to the dissent from the opinion reversing
Van Houten’s conviction following her first trial, Manson cult
member Diane Lake “testified that Van Houten told her she had
stabbed a woman who was already dead, and that the more
she did it the more fun it was.” (People v. Manson (1976)
61 Cal.App.3d 102, 227 (dis. opn. of Wood, P. J.); see In re
Van Houten, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 346 [quoting same].)
12
abortion, which led me to wanting to get away from my mom and
my family. Before the abortion, I was already involved in the
hippy thing of criticizing our parents and looking for an alternate
lifestyle . . . [.] [W]hen I left with [Beausoleil] and [Share], they
told me all I have to do is cut from my past, so, I called my mom
and told her I’m dropping out of society and you’ll never hear
from me again.’ ” “ ‘I went where I thought I’d be accepted and
safe and cared for and instead it was the worst thing that could
have happened.’ ”
Van Houten stated, “ ‘I was desperate to be accepted. I was
weak, I was incapable of having original thoughts by the time I
was at the ranch, my intellect had been smushed[.] I’m bright,
but it wasn’t working for me, I don’t mean it in an egotistical
way, but I’m bright, and I was doing all I could to not be.
Desperate to be accepted, . . . I had no sense of value. My value
came in the eyes of other people.’ ”
Asked how she was different now, Van Houten stated she
was “ ‘a person of independence’ ” and “ ‘a socially conscious
person. I don’t run from my intellect.’ ” She said, “ ‘I feel it’s very
important that I not try to forget what happened. Learning to
live with what I did is important.’ ” Van Houten “expressed
remorse for the death of the victims and stated that even at the
time of the crime she felt ‘bad that this had to happen to them,’
and clarified, ‘Not that it shouldn’t have happened . . . in my
head, I had it like we were going to war.’ ” Van Houten “stated
that now she feels ‘very, very sorry . . . deeply sorry.’ ”
c. Prison record
During her incarceration, Van Houten had participated in
self-help programs and worked and volunteered in various
capacities, including as a tutor. She earned a master’s degree in
13
Humanities. At the time of the CRA, she was the chairperson of
the Inmate Advisory Council, and was a facilitator in the Victim
Offenders Education Group and Actor’s Gang Prison Project. She
belonged to a Narcotics Anonymous group, and an Aging in
Prison group. She had “participated in mental health treatment
groups such as stress management, cognitive therapy, and
others . . . .”
Van Houten had a nearly spotless disciplinary record while
in prison, having been written up only once in 1981 for “verbally
communicating with women.” Since her last parole hearing,
Van Houten had remained free of discipline, and continued to
participate in self-help programs and to work as assigned.
“There is no indication that she has engaged in violence while
incarcerated.”
Van Houten said that after her third trial in 1978, she was
briefly married while incarcerated. She explained, “ ‘I met him in
the visiting room, he started writing to me . . . he was a grifter,
nickel-and-dime crimes, and he said he was rehabilitated.’ ”
Van Houten stated, “ ‘I wanted to be with somebody and have the
three-day visits. He wanted to exploit me, though, and live off
that, and I divorced him. He ended up doing a GTA and got
arrested, and in the car he had . . . a [correction officer’s] shirt, a
female, so, they thought I was trying to escape, but they cleared
me of it.’ ” At another point she corresponded with another man,
“who ended up hanging himself.”6
6 In Van Houten’s 2016 parole hearing, Van Houten was
asked by the deputy district attorney about the man with whom
she corresponded. The man, Michael Vines, was serving a life
sentence in a prison in Texas. Van Houten said she first wrote to
14
d. Clinical assessment
The evaluator reviewed Van Houten’s prior psychological
and risk assessments from 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016, all of
which indicated she presented a low risk for future violence.
The evaluator wrote that during the evaluation,
Van Houten maintained appropriate eye contact and was
cooperative, pleasant, well-spoken, and invested in the process.
“She appeared to make an effort to be forthcoming with
information and took time to provide thoughtful responses to
questions posed to her.” “There was no evidence of a thought
disorder” or “indication that she was responding to internal
stimuli or perceptual distortions of any kind (i.e., auditory,
visual, or tactile hallucinations).” “There was no evidence of
suicidal or homicidal thoughts or behavior . . . .”
Discussing Van Houten’s history of substance abuse, the
evaluator wrote that as a teenager, Van Houten used marijuana
daily, and also used LSD, benzedrine, mescaline and methedrine.
At Spahn Ranch she used LSD and marijuana, and was under
the influence of LSD when she committed the life offenses.
Van Houten reported she had now been sober for many years,
stating, “ ‘I really believe I have an addictive gene that I keep an
eye on. Also, it’s extremely disrespectful for the family and the
memory of my victims that I would use [drugs].’ ” Van Houten
had committed no infractions related to substance abuse while in
Vines in the early 1980’s, when they were editors of their
respective prison newspapers, and they continued corresponding
off and on for 16 years. Asked what the nature of their
communication was, Van Houten said, “Friends, prison romance,
something to do with the opposite sex.” Van Houten stated, “[H]e
ended up in I think Illinois and he hung himself.”
15
prison, and had participated in substance abuse treatment over
the years, including Narcotics Anonymous. Her relapse plan
should she be paroled included having a sponsor in the
community and staying involved in treatment groups.
Van Houten expressed her understanding “that sobriety upon
parole is not synonymous with sobriety in the prison setting.”
The evaluator concluded Van Houten “met the relevant
diagnostic criteria” for various substance abuse disorders given
her drug use prior to incarceration.
Van Houten did not meet the criteria for a personality
disorder. She had no disciplinary violations in prison apart from
the one nonviolent incident in 1981. “There is no evidence of
ongoing difficulty with rules or an attempt to violate the rights of
others.” The evaluator noted Van Houten had participated in
self-help programs “and has made an effort to understand what
contributed to the violence she perpetrated at age 19.”
e. Assessment of risk for future violence
In assessing Van Houten’s risk for future violence, the
evaluator began with an analysis of “historic factors” (boldface,
underscoring, & capitalization omitted). The evaluator wrote,
“When Ms. Van Houten was 14 years old, her parents divorced.
At 15, her boyfriend introduced her to drugs and she began to use
LSD and marijuana, among other substances. She became
pregnant in her teens and experienced the trauma of an
unwanted abortion that was forced upon her by her mother.
After the abortion, she felt emotionally numb. She was unable to
assess or process her emotions at the time, and she delved even
deeper into drug use. She eventually f[ound] herself with a group
of individuals traveling along the coast. While involved with
Manson’s group, she engaged in various criminal acts and was
16
arrested, although not prosecuted. The historical predictive
factors [of] prior violence, violent attitude, other antisocial
behavior, troubled relationships, traumatic experiences, and
substance abuse problems are present and relevant to future risk
of violent recidivism.”
The evaluator noted that Van Houten had a history of
impulsive behavior, including drug use and promiscuity, and that
her commitment offenses “reflected a callous lack of empathy for
the victims.” She did not, however, display “characteristics
commonly seen in psychopathic individuals.” During her nearly
50 years of incarceration “she has exhibited prosocial behaviors
and has sought positive relationships with others. She has not
shown herself to be deceptive, conning, or to lack remorse.” Her
score on a test designed to identify psychopathic tendencies “was
below the mean of North American female inmates and below the
cutoff or threshold commonly used to identify dissocial or
psychopathic personality.”
The evaluator found that Van Houten “demonstrated
insight into the contributing factors of the life crime and was able
to adequately discuss the causative factors involved. Over the
years, she has participated extensively in self-help programs,
including individual therapy, which have helped her understand
the pertinent factors that allowed her to become involved in the
life crime. Although she spoke of her susceptibility to the
influence of Manson, she also wished to take full responsibility
for her behavior without minimizing her role or externalizing
blame. Ms. Van Houten’s expressions of remorse for the victims
appeared genuine. At present, the risk factor, lack of insight,
is not present.”
17
The evaluator noted that Van Houten likely would
“experience some degree of stress as she paroles after such a
lengthy incarceration,” and that stress “may also be aggravated
by potential notoriety due to her high profile case.” “Stress,”
therefore, “is rated as . . . partially present and somewhat
relevant to risk.” Van Houten’s stress, however, “will likely be
mitigated by her decision to parole via [a] structured community
program and by the support she expects to receive from
friends/family.”
The evaluator further noted that Van Houten’s “ability and
willingness to abide by the rules of parole is foundational for a
successful parole.” The evaluator found Van Houten had
demonstrated her ability and willingness to follow the rules as
evidenced by her lack of disciplinary incidents while incarcerated
and her participation in programs to address the contributing
factors of her commitment offenses.
The evaluator observed that having committed her offenses
at age 19, Van Houten met the criteria for “ ‘youthful
offender.’ ” The evaluator opined, “[I]t seems very likely that
Ms. Van Houten’s involvement in the life offense was
significantly impacted by characteristics of youth, including
impulsivity, the inability to adequately foresee the long-term
consequences of her behavior, and the inability to manage her
emotions that resulted from a forced abortion. These factors
contributed to the notion of diminished culpability with respect to
Ms. Van Houten's involvement in the life crime.”
Since that time, Van Houten “appears to have benefited
from the rehabilitation process.” Van Houten “expressed what
appeared to be genuine regret for her involvement in the life
crime and she assumed full responsibility for her behavior,
18
without externalizing blame. It appears she has spent decades
attempting to understand, or gain insight into, the factors that
led her to become involved with Manson and to believe
wholeheartedly what she was instructed to believe.” Van Houten
“has not shown herself to be violent in the many years of her
incarceration,” “has followed the rules of the institution, has
participated in self-help programs and therapy extensively, [and]
has earned positive reports from supervisors and clinicians.”
As for her status as an “elderly” parole candidate, “[s]he
appears to have benefited from the natural maturation that
comes with age, as well as from the many years of programming
offered by the institution.” “At present, her risk for violent
reoffending is in the low range and it does not appear as though
age-related concerns will impact her ability to parole
successfully.”
In conclusion, the evaluator stated that Van Houten
represented a low risk for violent recidivism. The evaluator
noted the 2016 CRA had reached the same conclusion, and
“[s]ince that time, [Van Houten] has continued to program in a
positive manner.”
4. Parole hearing and decision
a. Hearing
The Board, represented by a presiding commissioner and
deputy commissioner, held a parole consideration hearing for
Van Houten on July 23, 2020, via videoconference. The presiding
commissioner, who was on the panel of Van Houten’s previous
parole hearing, began by summarizing Van Houten’s
preincarceration history, with Van Houten interjecting small
corrections. Van Houten confirmed that at the prior hearing,
19
asked to rank her anger at the time she told her mother she was
leaving to travel with Beausoleil and Share, said she was a seven
on a scale of one to 10.
The presiding commissioner then asked Van Houten to
“talk about the life crime” and what led up to it. Van Houten said
when she first arrived at the ranch, “it was, um, friendly kids
with this older guy [Manson] that presented himself as . . .
playful, fun. The goal at the ranch was to become one, one being,
one mind.” While the cult members were under the influence of
LSD, Manson would tell them to let go of everything their
parents had taught them. One woman in the group had
undergone surgery as a child, and Manson suggested her parents
had subjected her to the surgery “because she was too pretty.”
Van Houten noted that at the time, “I was carrying with me[ ] my
history with my mom.”
The cult at some point relocated to a different ranch in the
desert, and Manson went “back into town.” When he returned,
“things began to change and he started to speak of a revolution,
that the blacks had suffered and that the karma was going to
change and they were going to win the revolution.”
Manson and the cult began listening to the Beatles’ White
Album. Manson believed the Beatles were speaking to him, and
references on the album to “son of man” referred to Manson, as
the “Second Coming” of Jesus Christ. Manson had Van Houten
read to him from the book of Revelation so he could “look for the
different symbolism.”
Van Houten described a ritual in which Manson would
instruct one of the cult members to stand naked in the middle of
a circle formed by the other members, and then criticize the cult
member in an effort to “dismantle[e] our personalities.”
20
Van Houten once was in the center of the circle and Manson
criticized her for being “lost in thinking that [she] didn’t
understand him, that [she] needed to try harder.” Van Houten
said her humiliation turned into self-criticism.
The cult began to prepare for surviving the revolution,
including preserving food and practicing sneaking up on one
another. Manson believed they should all get used to living in
fear, because that is how they would survive. The group also
began to commit property crimes Manson called “creepy crawly,”
at which point Van Houten burglarized her own father’s house.
Manson began talking about “murder, killing, violence, surviving
more, preparing our mind[s] to see things that would jar
them . . . .”
As she had in the CRA, Van Houten described declining the
opportunity to leave the ranch with the biker who wanted her to
go with him. She said, “I felt like I was . . . frozen there, . . . that
to leave was to put myself in grave danger because of all of the
conversations about what was coming in the world.”
Van Houten described talking to Krenwinkel the morning
after Krenwinkel had participated in the killings at the Polanski
residence, and Krenwinkel said “that Helter Skelter had started.”
Van Houten “knew that that meant people had been murdered.
[Krenwinkel] said it didn’t seem right, that the people were
young and that one of the women was pregnant.” Van Houten
said that “[e]arly on, Manson had told me to stay close to
[Krenwinkel], that she was close to him and that I should be
around her. So, I knew that [Krenwinkel] had committed herself
and crossed the line and I wanted to do the same.” At the time,
Van Houten was under the impression that the killings would
continue, likely every night. “That it was now the way it was
21
going to be.” Asked by the presiding commissioner if Van Houten
at the time agreed with that plan, she said she did: “I believed in
[Manson]. I believed in what he saw coming and I was
committed to it.”
Van Houten described the night of the commitment
offenses. Manson, Van Houten, and several other cult members
drove around Los Angeles, with Manson getting out occasionally
to scout homes or buildings. They eventually stopped at the
La Bianca residence—Van Houten did not know who lived there
or why Manson selected it. Van Houten described killing the
La Biancas, her description largely similar to her description in
the CRA. As she had in the CRA, Van Houten stated that when
she got back to the ranch, she told a girl “what had happened and
I told her it was fun. I don’t remember saying it, but it sounds
like something I might’ve said at that time with who I was.”
After the murders, Van Houten went to the desert to
“continue[ ] to prepare for the revolution,” including marching
with backpacks and trying to survive on very little water. “[I]t
was all . . . training and preparation until we were arrested.”
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten to discuss
the causative factors leading to the murders. Van Houten said,
“[W]hen I met Catherine Share, I was at an all-time bottom low.
I had no income, I did not feel good about either of my parents,
and when I met her, it seemed to me that I was being offered a
pretty good life.” At the ranch, she read a book that described a
relationship “where one participant needs to be in control and the
other person needs to have someone take control. And I view
that as my initial relationship with Charles Manson. I didn’t
know what I was doing, I didn’t know where I was going.” She
explained that she was among people that were drinking and
22
using LSD and marijuana, and she was “part of the hippie
movement, looking for different lifestyles than what my parents
offered me, and I was broken by the abortion. It really deeply
wounded me.” “I believe that the things that made me weak and
lost were ultimately used as manipulations against me in my
conversations with Manson and how Manson chose to relate to
me. I didn’t know it at the time. At the time, I thought he had
great insight into what a horrible person I was at that time, by
allowing my mom to set up the abortion. I had a lot of criticism
about myself about that.”
Van Houten stated, “I allowed myself to make the group
more important than my early teachings of right and wrong. It
was important that the people at the ranch felt that I was one of
them and I was, and I sold myself out over and over.” She said
that during her LSD trips, Manson and the others would
convince her that whatever “red flag[s]” she saw about the group
were just “self-criticisms that I had not let go,” because she had
failed to “abandon[ ] the teachings that I received as a child,” as
Manson urged.
The presiding commissioner asked what Van Houten at the
time hoped to gain from Manson’s anticipated revolution, and
what attracted her to that mentality. Van Houten answered,
“Because Charles Manson was Christ-come back, I was obligated.
Because I was close to him, I was obligated to see through what
he knew had to happen.” As for what she herself would gain, “I
would be able to survive,” and “I would be accepted by Manson,
that he would know that I was very loyal to him.”
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten for the
definition of a “false leader.” Van Houten responded, “[A] false
leader is someone who believes that they have all the
23
answers . . . . False leaders manipulate the followers into
adhering to the leader’s belief system. A false leader believes
the[y’re] right and everybody else is wrong. A false leader . . .
harms others.” She continued, “A false leader creates a singular
point of view, and a false leader strips followers of their dignity
and their humanity.”
Van Houten then defined a true leader: “A true leader
encourages those that look to them, to flourish, to become the
best that they can, are aware of those who are suffering, and does
what they can to accommodate and help those, so that no one is
left behind. A true leader encourages others to be decision
makers. A true leader listens to the people rather than tell[ing]
them. A true leader shares their wisdom and listens to what
they’re being told.”
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten to look back
and identify “signs or red flags” that she “needed to get [away
from Manson] and do something different.” Van Houten said an
early red flag was the criticism the cult members received from
Manson about their individuality, and “[t]he fact that when we
weren’t around Manson, that we kept that same criticism going.”
“[T]he agenda of the ranch was that we all become one, that we
all become a finger on a hand, that we get . . . one thought, which
was part of the LSD experience and all of that.” She recalled at
one time Manson said he “thought [the] Black Panthers were
coming to get us,” and didn’t allow anyone to disagree with him.
“That whole idea that it had to be his point of view, um, the
violence that he would, um, inflict on people and the threat of it
is an indicator now.”
Van Houten estimated the first red flags appeared about a
month after she arrived at the ranch. She remembered everyone
24
took LSD, and Manson required them to commit to sitting all
night without getting up. Manson then said that he was leaving
the ranch because no one had treated him decently, “and
everybody flipped out. It was a really bad LSD trip.” When
Manson returned, he was more “aggressive.” On another
occasion, Manson made the cult members all “bah like sheep.”
He was also “violent to women,” including breaking a chair over a
woman’s head when she stood up against his instructions. “When
I saw that all I did was get very afraid and think[ ] don’t ever,
don’t ever stand up. Don’t, don’t do this, don’t do that. I was . . .
a compliant, weak human being, and I am not proud of that.”
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten what she
thought at the time about people who did leave the cult, including
a couple who fled across the desert to get away. Van Houten said
at the time she believed such people “weren’t tuned in.” It
did not occur to her to try to escape herself. As an example of her
devotion to Manson, she noted in one of the criminal trials she
“testified I was at a crime I wasn’t even at, to try to get Manson
off.”
Asked if there were any other factors that led to
Van Houten “cooperating with such a delusional leader,” Van
Houten answered, “The main factors were that I was . . . a very
weak person that took advantage of someone that wanted to take
control of my life and I handed it over.” At the time, “I believed I
was right doing that.” As for why she continued to follow Manson
even after it became evident the cult was turning violent and
Van Houten would have to kill people, she said, “I believed in
Manson. I believed in his belief system, I felt obligated to
participate. I wanted to participate. I believed that it was
something that had to be done,” because Manson said so.
25
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten how she
“handle[d]” it when she was in the La Biancas’ bedroom hearing
Watson murder Mr. La Bianca in the next room. Van Houten
stated, “Not well. I believed that I was[ ] in over my head, and I
became very critical of myself because I felt that I wasn’t carrying
my weight.” The presiding commissioner asked, “And carrying
your weight was to mutilate those people?” Van Houten said,
“Yes.” She continued, “So even at a time when I should have had
a bit of humanity, it became self-criticism . . . .”
The presiding commissioner asked Van Houten to talk
about the impact of her crimes. Van Houten answered, “[W]hen I
found out that it was Frank Struthers that came home and
discovered his mom, I know that it devastated him, and that has
been hard for me to, um, live with. I know that my crime hurt
the LaBianca [f]amily and I listen [at] every board hearing to how
it has impacted them. I know how the crimes have impacted
those that were at the first night, Sharon Tate, and her sister and
her family and the others. I know that because it wasn’t an early
arrest that the Los Angeles area lived in fear. I know that for
those that came in and did the investigation, that it . . . affected
them, that they were exposed to things that would not leave their
conscience. I know that it affected my family. My brother and
sister who were still in school had a very hard time.” She
continued, “[I]t devastated . . . my own family, my neighborhood,
those that knew me.” Van Houten stated, “[M]y crime affected
the nation. It brought an end to a time period in the ‘60s. It
impacted other people in other countr[ies] and it continues to.”
Asked about her impact on Mr. and Mrs. La Bianca
themselves, Van Houten said of Mrs. La Bianca, “I robbed her of
her ability to live a life, see grandchildren, become whoever she
26
was, flourish, stole her life. She didn’t deserve it. She didn’t in
any way, have it coming. She was living her life. No
relationship.” Regarding Mr. La Bianca, “I robbed him of being
able to enjoy his family, who loved him dearly. To see through
those things that he enjoyed, play with grandchildren, be present
at holidays, see the fruits of all of his labors. He was an innocent
victim and I robbed him of his life.”
Asked what she would have done differently in her life
looking back on it now, Van Houten said she would have been
more supportive of her mother, rather than blame her and
become rebellious. She wished she had followed her intuition and
left the ranch “when things began to change.” “Regarding the
murders, on hindsight, I wish I could have gone to the police and
talked to someone before it ever started.” She also wished she
had not started smoking marijuana and getting involved with the
boyfriend who got her pregnant, all of which “were spearheaded
by my anger and rebelliousness at my mom and feeling that dad
had left me.”
Asked when she first had any intuition to leave the ranch,
she said, “[T]he first time was when I’d probably been there about
a week and Manson started to turn on me for having too much
ego and not surrendering. And instead of following that, I really
thought, wow, I need to work on myself and see what he’s talking
about. It got the better of me, and then it just went downhill
from there.”
The deputy commissioner went over Van Houten’s
postconviction record with her. Van Houten had earned a B.A.
and M.A. while in prison. She had no additional academic
history or vocational training since her last parole hearing. She
continued to work as chairperson of the Inmate Advisory
27
Committee and was volunteering as a tutor. Her reviews were
“still exceptional. They still say you’re dependable and efficient,
so it hasn’t changed for many years.” Van Houten had not
committed any rule violations since her last hearing, and her last
written discipline was in the 1980’s. Although Van Houten had
twice participated in the Victim’s Offender Group, she was no
longer participating because having previously participated she
was now ineligible under prison rules. She participated in
Alcoholics Anonymous. Prior to the COVID-19 emergency, she
was facilitating a program called Helping Women Recover, and
was training to facilitate a program called the If Project. She was
also participating in therapy groups.
Asked to explain what a healthy relationship is,
Van Houten answered, “[I]t’s two individuals that come together
and there is room to disagree, there is room to have discussions
and not attack, that there are individual interests, that it’s not
symbiotic, that it’s something where the two individuals choose to
enjoy each other’s company and help each other become the best
human beings that they can become and work out their problems
in a civil manner.” She would deal with an unhealthy
relationship by “bring[ing] up to the individual what I’m
beginning to feel and that it’s not working out for me.” “And
hopefully they would hear me and if they did not, and at that
point, they try to change my personality to meet their needs, I
would leave it.”
Asked whether she had gained any new insights from her
most recent programming, Van Houten said in one program she
learned about how the body and brain are connected, “[a]nd if you
can understand what’s going on, like if I can say, wow, I’m . . .
really feeling tense right now, if I can read that in myself, then I
28
can see where it’s going in my head that can help with relapse,
bad relationships, just about everything.” Also, by facilitating
the Helping Women Recover program, which involved younger
women, “sometimes, I was able to see who I was then and who I
am now. And . . . that was helpful to me to see that.”
Van Houten explained her plan to prevent relapse into
substance abuse, identifying a person she hoped would be her
sponsor, and stating she had friends she could talk to. The
deputy commissioner noted Van Houten had participated in
Narcotics Anonymous and similar programs since 1994.
Asked what advice she would give her younger self,
Van Houten said to “slow down and talk with me about what’s
going on inside.” “I would really stress learning to measure
consequence.”
The deputy commissioner noted the Board had received
letters opposing Van Houten’s release, and summarized four of
them. One writer was concerned Van Houten would fall back
into bad relationships. Another believed Van Houten was a
sociopath. Another thought Van Houten had no remorse.
Another “wrote in, as a concerned California citizen.” Other than
naming the writers, the record does not indicate whether the
writers knew Van Houten or merely were expressing concern
based on their awareness of her crimes.
The deputy commissioner also summarized letters from
people who supported Van Houten’s release. An expert on cults
who regularly met with Van Houten about once a year opined
that Van Houten was free of Manson’s influence. Van Houten’s
brother wrote in support of her release. A former high school
classmate of Van Houten’s wrote that she would provide $12,000
a year to support Van Houten upon her release. There were
29
15 letters supporting her release from people who met her while
she was incarcerated, including a former associate warden. A
former inmate wrote about a meeting of “former lifers who
thought that [Van Houten was] at the core of their
rehabilitation.” Another former inmate offered to support
Van Houten with her 12-step program. Two friends of
Van Houten each offered to provide her with housing.
Asked about her housing plans upon parole, Van Houten
stated she would prefer to start in a transitional program, and
had a particular one in mind run by a former prison employee
and parole officer for whom Van Houten previously had worked.
Van Houten listed a number of possible employment options, and
the deputy commissioner read from letters in which people
offered to assist Van Houten in finding work.
The presiding commissioner asked, “[W]hat’s caused your
behavior to be nonviolent for 50 years?” Van Houten answered,
“[W]hen they abolished the death penalty, I knew that I, number
one, was going to have to live with what I did. And also, it was
like a new beginning for me. And I made a commitment to myself
that I would not deliberately hurt another human being, both
physically, emotionally. And I was young, so there have been
times I’ve made mistakes and I’m sure that I have hurt people
along the way. But my goal has always been [to] be someone that
encourages and cares and, um, I just live my life like that. I
don’t, I don’t respond violently. When, when I get angry, my first
response is not to lash out. My first response is to step away,
evaluate. You know, that’s, that’s how I handle severe
frustration.”
Asked how she would respond to a high-risk situation in
the future, Van Houten said she would contact her therapist,
30
remove herself from the high-risk situation, and contact the
police if appropriate. She would let her parole agent know
immediately.
The presiding commissioner then discussed the 2018 CRA.
The commissioner noted the evaluator’s comments that
Van Houten was pleasant, well-spoken and invested in the
interview process, in which she provided thoughtful responses.
The commissioner further noted that Van Houten’s test scores
showed she was below the threshold commonly used to identify
antisocial or psychopathic personality. The commissioner
acknowledged, as did the CRA, that Van Houten was subject to
special parole considerations for both youthful offenders and
elderly inmates, and noted the CRA’s statement that Van Houten
had taken every opportunity to make positive changes with
respect to education, vocation, and self-help. Finally, the
commissioner noted the evaluator’s conclusion that Van Houten
presented a low risk of future violence.
In response to clarifying questions from the deputy district
attorney in attendance, Van Houten stated at the time of her
crimes she believed the consequence of the murders would be to
spark the revolution predicted by Manson. Asked to explain why
she “disregarded what her parents and the church taught her,”
Van Houten stated, “I was turning my back on the foundation of
what makes a civilized society. I was turning my back on my
parents” because of the abortion. “I turned my back on the
church because I felt that I had found a person who was
redefining it, you know. I had already turned my back on the
conventional by studying with [the] self-realization fellowship.”
Van Houten then answered questions from her attorney.
Asked what the consequences were if she displeased Manson,
31
Van Houten said, “[I]f I was going along with the program, then
my life was pretty steady. If I . . . didn’t, then there was a
repercussion, humiliation.” Asked if her encounters with law
enforcement prior to the commitment offenses, none of which
resulted in charges, led her to believe there would be no
consequences for her crimes, she stated at the time she was only
concerned with the impending revolution, and was not thinking
about legal consequences or being arrested. Van Houten at the
time believed she was obligated to dedicate herself to Manson
because in her view he was Christ, and were she to give up her
life for him her spirit would live on forever. If she found herself
among a violent group today, she would leave and report them:
“I wouldn’t find myself that long around people that think like
that. I . . . don’t in here, you know. I don’t . . . put myself around
violent people.” Van Houten also discussed her work with the
Inmate Advisory Committee. She said if granted parole she
wanted to continue working to reduce recidivism rates.
The deputy district attorney gave a closing statement in
which she argued Van Houten’s was a rare case in which the
circumstances of the life crimes alone justified denial of parole.
She described the crimes, not only of Van Houten, but of other
Manson cult members, and the impact of those crimes on society.
She argued that because Van Houten had adopted Manson’s
ideology, “every act of this terrorist organization is imputed to
her.” She contended Van Houten also had not shown sufficient
insight into her reasons for committing her life offenses to satisfy
the Governor’s past concerns, although beyond making this
statement the deputy district attorney did not identify anything
in the record indicating insufficient insight.
32
Van Houten’s attorney gave a closing statement, urging her
release on parole. Van Houten gave her own closing statement,
stating, “I [want to] say thank you for having this opportunity
today to speak with you. I’ve answered every question that I can
in the most honest way possible. I have worked very hard to
become the person that I am today. I regret and have deep
remorse for my actions. I offer the sincerest apology to the
LaBianca [f]amily and to those that were . . . victims at the Tate
house. I’m terribly sorry for the devastation I caused in
everyone’s life and I do my best to make recompense in who I am
today. I appreciate this opportunity, and I hope that I was able
to convey to you the sincere nature of my heart today. Thank
you.”
The Board then heard statements from Sharon Tate
Polanski’s sister, Debra Tate, and Mr. La Bianca’s nephew, Louis
Smaldino, both of whom objected to Van Houten’s release. Tate
stated, inter alia, that there was information of which the Board
was unaware, specifically details about the Manson cult’s crimes
that Tate had learned from attending parole hearings of other
cult members, which Tate believed indicated Van Houten was
“not coming clean with everything.” Tate believed Van Houten
had failed to apologize for her actions except during parole
hearings, and that her parole hearing testimony was inconsistent
hearing to hearing. Tate claimed to have been threatened by
supporters of the imprisoned Manson cult members, and believed
the cult members continued to communicate with one another.
Tate noted Van Houten’s past correspondence with a man
convicted of a double homicide who then committed suicide
(Michael Vines, see fn. 7, ante). Tate characterized Van Houten’s
relationship with Vines as “romantic,” and believed it suggested
33
Van Houten “still has questionable taste or perhaps is attracted
to the same kind of person.” Apart from her statement to the
Board, the record does not indicate Tate provided any additional
evidence against Van Houten.
Smaldino said he had attended 15 of Van Houten’s parole
hearings, and accused her of repeatedly downplaying her role by
claiming she had been forced to commit the crimes, had been
abused, or had only stabbed Mrs. La Bianca after Van Houten
believed she was dead. He believed Van Houten was a willing
participant in the killings. He described the impact of the crimes
on his family, noting the emotional harm inflicted upon them,
and the loss of the family grocery business after Mr. La Bianca’s
murder.
b. Board’s decision
Following a recess, the Board issued a decision finding
Van Houten suitable for parole. Pursuant to Penal Code
section 3051, subdivision (a), Van Houten qualified as a “youthful
offender” at the time of the life crimes, and the Board found that
her positive behavior over the subsequent 50 years “indicates
that [she has] participated in long-time reflection, maturity of
judgment, . . . appreciation of human worth, and remorse for the
things that [she] did when [she was] 19 years old.”
The Board considered the circumstances showing
unsuitability for parole, and found them outweighed by
circumstances suggesting suitability. The Board described
Van Houten’s crimes as “extremely heinous, cruel, really
disturbing, . . . dispassionate.” Her “reasons for committing the
offense, [her] anger, [her] greed, [her] selfishness, [her] delusional
belief system, [her] extreme gang mentality, in no way, justified
[her] actions.” The Board considered Van Houten’s prior
34
criminality, including “self-reported theft and drug use,” and her
“prior unstable social behavior” such as her relationship with her
parents, her drug and alcohol use, and her running away.
“However, the panel recognizes that after a long period of time,
factors such as the commitment offense, prior criminality, and
unstable social history . . . no longer indicate a current risk of
danger to society in light of a lengthy period of
rehabilitation . . . .”
The Board then addressed the circumstances indicating
Van Houten was suitable for parole. She had no history of
violent crime apart from the commitment offenses, either before
those offenses or during her 50-year incarceration. She had a
stable social history while incarcerated as indicated by her lack of
disciplinary reports and her positive programming. The
presiding commissioner said, “I’ve done over a thousand cases,
done over a thousand hearings, and you’re one of the best
programming inmates I’ve seen.”
The Board found Van Houten’s expressions of remorse and
her acceptance of responsibility to be consistent with her positive
behavior. Her current age “reduces the probability of recidivism.”
The presiding commissioner praised her work with the Victim
Offenders Education Group, which Van Houten had “handled . . .
with grace and maturity,” and recalled a graduation event he
attended at the prison at which speakers indicated that
Van Houten had had a positive impact on their lives.
The Board further noted Van Houten had created a
“significant support system inside prison for [herself], as well as
other people,” and had also developed a support system outside to
make her transition out of prison “as smooth as [she] could
possibly make it.” The Board found Van Houten had realistic
35
residential plans, marketable skills, and had demonstrated
means for support upon release.
The Board referred to the 2018 CRA finding Van Houten to
present a low risk of future violence, which was consistent with
“decades” of psychological evaluations of Van Houten. The Board
quoted at length from the 2018 CRA, including Van Houten’s
insight into the contributing factors of her life crimes, the role
Van Houten’s youth played in those crimes, and the lack of
findings of antisocial or psychopathic behaviors. The Board noted
its earlier decisions granting Van Houten parole, and found
Van Houten had “maintained steady behavior and continued
growth” since then.
5. Governor’s reversal
On November 27, 2020, the Governor issued a written
decision reversing Van Houten’s parole. The decision began with
a summary of the Manson cult and its ideology, a description of
the murders at the Polanski residence, and a description of the
murders of the La Biancas.
The Governor wrote that he “carefully examined the record
for evidence demonstrating Ms. Van Houten’s increased maturity
and rehabilitation, and gave great weight to all the factors
relevant to her diminished culpability as a youthful offender.”
The Governor “acknowledge[d] that Ms. Van Houten has made
efforts to improve herself in prison,” and listed programs in which
she had participated or facilitated, including Narcotics
Anonymous, the Victim Offender Education Group, and the
Actors’ Gang Prison Project. The Governor noted Van Houten’s
educational and vocational advancements, her service on the
Inmate Advisory Council, and her “exemplary disciplinary
record.” “However, these factors are outweighed by negative
36
factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole at
this time.”
The Governor wrote, “Ms. Van Houten’s explanation of
what allowed her to be vulnerable to Mr. Manson’s influence
remains unsatisfying. At her parole hearing, Ms. Van Houten
explained that she was turning her back on her parents following
their divorce and after a forced abortion. She described herself at
the time of her involvement in the Manson Family as a ‘very
weak person that took advantage of someone that wanted to take
control of my life and I handed it over.’ I am unconvinced that
these factors adequately explain her eagerness to submit to a
dangerous cult leader or her desire to please Mr. Manson,
including engaging in the brutal actions of the life crime.”
The Governor further stated, “I remain concerned by
Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of her participation in this
gruesome double murder, part of a series of crimes that rank
among the most infamous and fear-inducing in California
history.” The Governor quoted Van Houten’s statements from
the CRA and parole hearing describing her desire to show
Manson she was committed to his cause, and her sense of
obligation to kill for him. He quoted her description in the CRA
of the commitment offenses, ending with her statement that
when she stabbed Mrs. La Bianca, “ ‘It was a horrible, predatory
feeling.’ ” The Governor found Van Houten’s statement “that
committing the offense was ‘horrible’ conflicts with her
subsequent conduct. After the murders, Ms. Van Houten
reportedly told a young female follower of Mr. Manson that
participating in the murders was ‘fun.’ Moreover, she continued
to follow Mr. Manson’s instructions and ‘continued to prepare for
the revolution’ until she was arrested. The inconsistency
37
indicates gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both,
which bear on her current risk for dangerousness.”
The Governor wrote, “The evaluating psychologist noted
that several historical factors including ‘prior violence, violent
attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships,
traumatic experiences, and substance abuse problems are present
and relevant to future risk of violent recidivism.’ These factors
remain salient despite Ms. Van Houten’s advanced age and
remain cause for concern should she be released into the
community.”
The Governor concluded, “Given the extreme nature of the
crime in which she was involved, I do not believe she has
sufficiently demonstrated that she has come to terms with the
totality of the factors that led her to participate in the vicious
Manson Family killings. Before she can be safely released,
Ms. Van Houten must do more to develop her understanding of
the factors that caused her to seek acceptance from such a
negative, violent influence, and perpetrate extreme acts of
wanton violence.”
6. Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus by
superior court
Van Houten challenged the Governor’s decision through a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. The trial
court ruled there was evidence in the record to support the
reversal of parole. The court noted that Van Houten’s
commitment offenses were heinous, atrocious, and cruel, and that
in the 2004 In re Van Houten opinion, the appellate court
concluded the “character of the offense” alone justified denying
parole. The court found the historical psychological factors the
Governor quoted from the CRA supported an unsuitability
38
finding. The court further found the Governor’s determination
that Van Houten lacked insight “into exactly what led her to
follow such a dangerous man and blindly accept his teachings”
supported the reversal decision.
The trial court also read the Governor’s decision as finding
Van Houten was unsuitable for parole because she had
“minimized her culpability in the murders.” The court noted that
Van Houten had told the Board “she held Mrs. La Bianca down
while Krenwinkel stabbed the victim,” and “also told the Board
that she assumed the victim was dead when she personally
stabbed the victim 16 times.” “The Governor’s finding that
[Van Houten] minimized her role in the murders is also some
evidence of current dangerousness.”
The trial court rejected Van Houten’s other arguments,
finding the Governor adequately considered her status as a
youthful offender, her continued incarceration did not violate the
constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual
punishment, and the Governor’s power to reverse parole decisions
did not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection
under the law. The court declined to address arguments
concerning equitable estoppel and Van Houten’s right to access
certain evidence, concluding those claims had been raised and
rejected in earlier habeas petitions. The court also declined to
address the argument that the Governor’s reversal was untimely
because that issue was under consideration by the Court of
Appeal.7
7 This court later denied Van Houten’s challenge to the
timeliness of the Governor’s decision.
39
Following the trial court’s denial of her petition,
Van Houten filed an original petition for habeas corpus in this
court. After requesting and reviewing opposition from the
Attorney General, we issued an order to show cause and received
full briefing from the parties.
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
1. Suitability for parole
The governing regulations provide that “a life prisoner
shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment
of the [Board] the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of
danger to society if released from prison.” (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (a).)8 “[T]he fundamental consideration in
parole decisions is public safety,” which requires “an assessment
of an inmate’s current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008)
44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205 (Lawrence).
The regulations specify circumstances indicating both an
inmate’s suitability and unsuitability for parole. Circumstances
indicating unsuitability include that the prisoner has “committed
the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner.”
(Regs., § 2402, subd. (c)(1).) Factors to be considered in
determining the severity of the commitment offense include
whether there were “[m]ultiple victims,” whether “[t]he offense
was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner,”
whether “[t]he victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or
8 Further regulatory citations are to title 15 of the
California Code of Regulations.
40
after the offense,” whether the manner in which the offense was
committed “demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for
human suffering,” and whether “[t]he motive for the crime is
inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.” (Ibid.)
Other circumstances tending to indicate unsuitability for
parole include that the inmate “on previous occasions inflicted or
attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the
prisoner demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early
age”; “has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with
others;” “previously sexually assaulted another in a manner
calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim”; “has a
lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense”;
and “has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail.” (Regs.,
§ 2402, subd. (c).)
Importantly, “the mere presence of a statutory
unsuitability factor” is not “the focus of the parole decision”;
rather, there must be “reasoning establishing a rational nexus
between those factors and the necessary basis for the ultimate
decision—the determination of current dangerousness.”
(Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1210.)
Circumstances tending to show that the prisoner is suitable
for release include that the prisoner (1) “does not have a record of
assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a
potential of personal harm to victims”; (2) “has experienced
reasonably stable relationships with others”; (3) “performed acts
which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as
attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving
suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the
nature and magnitude of the offense”; (4) “committed his crime as
the result of significant stress in his life, especially if the stress
41
has built over a long period of time”; (5) at “the time of the
commission of the crime, the prisoner suffered from Battered
Woman Syndrome . . . and it appears the criminal behavior was
the result of that victimization”; (6) “lacks any significant history
of violent crime”; (7) “present age reduces the probability of
recidivism”; (8) “has made realistic plans for release or has
developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release”;
and (9) has engaged in “[i]nstitutional activities [that] indicate
an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release.”
(Regs., § 2402, subd. (d).)
With exceptions not relevant here, the Penal Code imposes
additional considerations when the Board is determining parole
for youthful offenders—those who committed their offenses at the
age of 25 years or younger—and “elderly” inmates—those who
are 50 years or older and have served a minimum of 20 years on
their current sentence. (Pen. Code, §§ 3055, 4801.) In the case of
youthful offenders, the Board “shall give great weight to the
diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the
hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and
increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant
case law.” (Id., § 4801, subd. (c).) In the case of “elderly”
inmates, the Board “shall give special consideration to whether
age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have
reduced the elderly inmate’s risk for future violence.” (Id.,
§ 3055, subd. (c).)
2. Governor’s review
After the Board finds an inmate suitable for release on
parole, the Governor may conduct an independent de novo review
of the entire record to determine whether the inmate currently
poses a threat to public safety. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. (b);
42
In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 215, 220–221 (Shaputis).)
“ ‘ “[T]he Governor’s decision must be based upon the same
factors that restrict the Board in rendering its parole decision,” ’ ”
but the Governor may be “ ‘ “more stringent or cautious” ’ ” than
the Board in deciding whether the inmate poses an unreasonable
risk to the public. (In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 257,
fn. 12.)
We review the Governor’s decision under the “some
evidence” standard, a standard our Supreme Court has called
“extremely deferential.” (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th
616, 665 (Rosenkrantz).) Under that standard, a simple modicum
of evidence is all that is required to uphold the Governor’s
decision. (Shaputis, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 210.) “Only when the
evidence reflecting the inmate’s present risk to public safety
leads to but one conclusion may a court overturn a contrary
decision by . . . the Governor.” (Id. at p. 211.)
In applying the “some evidence” standard, “[t]he court
is not empowered to reweigh the evidence.” (Shaputis, supra,
53 Cal.4th at p. 221.) “ ‘Resolution of any conflicts in the
evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters
within the authority of . . . the Governor,” and it is left to the
Governor’s discretion how “ ‘the specified factors relevant to
parole suitability are considered and balanced.’ ” (Id. at p. 210.)
“ ‘It is irrelevant that a court might determine that evidence in
the record tending to establish suitability for parole far
outweighs evidence demonstrating unsuitability for parole. As
long as the . . . decision reflects due consideration of the specified
factors as applied to the individual prisoner in accordance with
applicable legal standards, the court’s review is limited to
43
ascertaining whether there is some evidence in the record that
supports the . . . decision.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
In reviewing an order reversing a grant of parole, we may
look to the entire record for evidence supporting the reversal, and
are not limited to the evidence specified in the Governor’s written
decision. (Shaputis, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 214–215, fn. 11.)
B. The Governor’s Decision Is Not Supported By the
Record
Acknowledging the Governor’s constitutional authority to
reverse grants of parole, and our extremely deferential standard
of review of the exercise of that authority, we nonetheless
conclude that the Governor’s reversal in this case is not
supported by a modicum of evidence in the record.
1. The Governor’s stated reasons for reversal
are not supported by the record
We begin by addressing the reasoning expressly stated in
the Governor’s decision. The Governor found that Van Houten’s
“explanation of what allowed her to be vulnerable to
Mr. Manson’s influence remains unsatisfying,” and he was
“unconvinced” that Van Houten’s parents’ divorce and her forced
abortion “adequately explain her eagerness to submit to a
dangerous cult leader or her desire to please Mr. Manson,
including engaging in the brutal actions of the life crime.”
Our Supreme Court has held that an inmate’s “failure to
‘gain insight or understanding into either his violent conduct or
his commission of the commitment offense’ support[s] a denial of
parole.” (Shaputis, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 218.) “[T]he presence
or absence of insight is a significant factor in determining
whether there is a ‘rational nexus’ between the inmate’s
44
dangerous past behavior and the threat the inmate currently
poses to public safety.” (Ibid.) “[A] ‘lack of insight’ into past
criminal conduct can reflect an inability to recognize the
circumstances that led to the commitment crime; and such an
inability can imply that the inmate remains vulnerable to those
circumstances and, if confronted by them again, would likely
react in a similar way.” (In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533,
547 (Ryner).)
In taking issue with the adequacy of Van Houten’s
explanation of the causative factors leading to her life crimes, we
presume the Governor found Van Houten had an inability or
unwillingness “to recognize the circumstances that led to the
commitment crime,” thus raising the possibility that Van Houten
“remains vulnerable to those circumstances” such that she might
reoffend. (Ryner, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) The question
is whether the Governor’s conclusion is supported by some
evidence in the record.
We hold it is not. It cannot be said that Van Houten
has not extensively identified and discussed the factors leading to
her life crimes, only some of which briefly are referenced in the
Governor’s decision. In both her interview with the CRA
evaluator and at the parole hearing, Van Houten expounded at
length on the causative factors, beginning with her feelings of
anger and abandonment after her parents’ divorce, a stigmatizing
event in that era, and how that led to drug and alcohol abuse.
She ran away from home with her boyfriend, who had
impregnated her. Her mother then forced her to have an illegal
abortion against her wishes, unmedicated, in her bedroom,
instructed to keep quiet so as to not wake her siblings.
Van Houten spoke of shutting down emotionally and feeling
45
numb after the abortion. The CRA evaluator wrote that, even
now, Van Houten “was tearful as she spoke of the abortion and
what ‘might have been.’ ” Van Houten described herself at that
point in time as being “ ‘[d]esperate to be accepted,’ ” and
“ ‘ha[ving] no sense of value. My value came in the eyes of other
people.’ ”
Van Houten stated when she met Manson cult member
Catherine Share, she “was at an all-time bottom low. I had no
income, I did not feel good about either of my parents, and when I
met her, it seemed to me that I was being offered a pretty good
life.” She described how Manson slowly indoctrinated her, often
while she was under the influence of LSD. The cult was not
murderous and violent at the outset—rather, she stated her time
at the ranch initially “ ‘seemed fun,’ ” and the talk of and
preparation for violence and revolution came later. Van Houten
said she “ ‘wanted to belong and . . . wanted to belong to
something that wasn’t connected to my past.’ ” Van Houten
explained how Manson used her anger with her parents and her
shame about the abortion to convince her to turn her back on
society, accept the alternative lifestyle he offered, and reject the
lessons of right and wrong she had learned in her youth. Manson
successfully transformed any doubts Van Houten had about the
cult into her own self-criticism for failing to achieve the
enlightenment he purportedly offered. By the time Manson’s talk
turned to violence and murder, Van Houten already had fully
committed to him, so much so that she believed he was Christ
reborn. She also believed in the impending revolution, and that
remaining with Manson was key to her survival.
The Governor found Van Houten’s extensive discussion of
the causative factors inadequate to explain her life crimes. This
46
necessarily implies the Governor believes there are additional
factors for which Van Houten has failed to account, factors that,
unaddressed, create a risk of violent recidivism.
There is no indication in the record, however, of a latent
underlying factor that potentially could result in violent conduct,
nor has the Governor identified one. The CRA evaluator found
Van Houten did not meet the criteria for psychopathy or a
personality disorder, and there was no evidence of a thought
disorder, hallucinations, or homicidal or suicidal thoughts or
behavior. The evaluator further found it “very likely” that
Van Houten’s youth at the time “significantly impacted” her
involvement in the life offense, a factor obviously no longer
applicable five decades later. The CRA’s finding that Van Houten
presented a low risk of recidivism was consistent with similar
evaluations over many years. Van Houten, moreover, has no
history of violence either before the life crimes or in the 50 years
since, and the prison staff regarded her highly enough to place
her in positions of leadership within the prison, including
facilitating groups intended to help other inmates with their
rehabilitation.
The record shows no additional factors Van Houten has
failed to articulate, or what further evidence she could have
provided to establish her suitability for parole. The Governor’s
concern that there is more than meets the eye is, on this record,
speculation, but the Governor’s “decisions must be supported by
some evidence, not merely by a hunch or intuition.” (Lawrence,
supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1213.)
In Ryner, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s
overturning of the Governor’s parole reversal, finding that when
“undisputed evidence shows that the inmate has acknowledged
47
the material aspects of his or her conduct and offense, shown an
understanding of its causes, and demonstrated remorse, the
Governor’s mere refusal to accept such evidence is not itself a
rational or sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the
inmate lacks insight, let alone that he or she remains currently
dangerous.” (Supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 549.)
The Ryner court reasoned, “[W]e have to question whether
anyone can ever fully comprehend the myriad circumstances,
feelings, and current and historical forces that motivate conduct,
let alone past misconduct. Additionally, we question whether
anyone can ever adequately articulate the complexity and
consequences of past misconduct and atone for it to the
satisfaction of everyone. Indeed, the California Supreme Court
has recognized that ‘expressions of insight and remorse will vary
from prisoner to prisoner and . . . there is no special formula for a
prisoner to articulate in order to communicate that he or she has
gained insight into, and formed a commitment to ending, a
previous pattern of violent behavior.’ ” (Ryner, supra,
196 Cal.App.4th at p. 548, quoting In re Shaputis (2008)
44 Cal.4th 1241, 1260, fn. 18.) The court continued, “[O]ne
always remains vulnerable to a charge that he or she lacks
sufficient insight into some aspect of past misconduct even after
meaningful self-reflection and expressions of remorse.” (Ryner, at
p. 548.) “[A]lthough a ‘lack of insight’ may describe some failure
to acknowledge and accept an undeniable fact about one’s
conduct, it can also be shorthand for subjective perceptions based
on intuition or undefined criteria that are impossible to refute.”
(Ibid.)
As in Ryner, we hold that, on this record, the Governor’s
dissatisfaction with Van Houten’s insight appears to be a “mere
48
refusal to accept” her description of what led her to be an acolyte
of the Manson cult and its murderous objectives, as well as the
evidence of her rehabilitation. As we have explained, the record
provides no basis to support that refusal.
The Governor’s other stated reasons to reverse
Van Houten’s parole do not withstand scrutiny. The Governor
found a discrepancy between Van Houten’s statements now
and her purported statements and actions shortly after
she committed the life crimes, which “indicates gaps in
Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.” Specifically, the
Governor referred to Van Houten’s current description that
stabbing Mrs. La Bianca “ ‘was a horrible, predatory feeling,’ ”
and contrasted that with Van Houten reportedly telling a fellow
cult member the day after the murder that it was “ ‘fun.’ ” The
Governor further noted that Van Houten “ ‘continued to prepare
for the revolution,’ ” which we presume the Governor was
suggesting is inconsistent with Van Houten’s indication that she
felt horrible about the murder.
The record does not support the Governor’s conclusion that
Van Houten’s statements suggest a lack of insight or candor.
Van Houten’s bravado to the fellow cult member9 and her
continued involvement with Manson following the murders are
completely consistent with her current description of her attitude
at the time, which was to prove her devotion to Manson and the
cult and suppress any personal misgivings she may have had
about the killings.
9 Van Houten told both the CRA evaluator and the Board
she did not recall telling the cult member the murder was fun,
although she did not deny doing so.
49
More important, it is unreasonable to compare
Van Houten’s description of her emotions during the crime now,
after decades of therapy, self-help programming, and reflection,
to how she characterized her feelings at age 19, while still deeply
enmeshed in drug abuse and the Manson cult. The 19-year-old,
drug-addled Van Houten characterized the surge of adrenaline
and emotion she felt committing her first murder as “fun,”
whereas the 69-year-old Van Houten, looking back, would realize
those feelings in fact reflected aggression and predation.10 The
Attorney General argues one cannot feel something is “fun” and
also “horrible, aggressive, predatory,” but these are descriptions
given 50 years apart, through very different lenses.
The Governor also referenced the CRA’s listing of
“ ‘historical factors’ ” that were “ ‘present and relevant to future
risk of violent recidivism,’ ” including “ ‘prior violence, violent
attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships,
traumatic experiences, and substance abuse problems.’ ” The
Governor wrote, “These factors remain salient” and give “cause
for concern.”
These historical factors are, of course, historical, meaning
they are immutable factors arising from Van Houten’s past
conduct and experiences. Our Supreme Court has cautioned
that, although the Governor may base a parole reversal on
“immutable facts” such as the “circumstances of the offense” or an
“inmate’s criminal history,” the Governor may do so only “if those
facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to
pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.” (Lawrence, supra,10 Van Houten was 69 years old at the time of the 2018
CRA.
50
44 Cal.4th at p. 1221.) In Lawrence, the court held the Governor
could not rely “solely upon the immutable circumstances of the
[commitment] offense” to reverse a grant of parole given the
inmate’s “extraordinary rehabilitative efforts specifically tailored
to address the circumstances that led to her criminality, her
insight into her past criminal behavior, her expressions of
remorse, her realistic parole plans, the support of her family, and
numerous institutional reports justifying parole, as well as the
favorable discretionary decisions of the Board at successive
hearings.” (Id. at p. 1226.) In that circumstance, “the
unchanging factor of the gravity of petitioner’s commitment
offense has no predictive value regarding her current threat to
public safety, and thus provides no support for the Governor’s
conclusion that petitioner is unsuitable for parole at the present
time.” (Ibid.)
Van Houten has shown extraordinary rehabilitative efforts,
insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and
friends, favorable institutional reports, and, at the time of the
Governor’s decision, had received four successive grants of parole.
Although the Governor states Van Houten’s historical factors
“remain salient,” he identifies nothing in the record indicating
Van Houten has not successfully addressed those factors through
many years of therapy, substance abuse programming, and other
efforts. The CRA evaluator, although acknowledging the
historical factors, nonetheless concluded Van Houten presented a
low risk for recidivism. As in Lawrence, under these
circumstances Van Houten’s unchanging historical risk factors do
not provide some evidence that she is currently dangerous and
unsuitable for parole.
51
2. Additional reasons proffered by the Attorney
General, the trial court, and the dissent are not
supported by the record
The Attorney General, in his return to Van Houten’s
petition, the trial court, in its decision denying Van Houten’s
habeas petition, and our dissenting colleague offer additional
bases, not specifically cited in the Governor’s decision, to support
the reversal of Van Houten’s parole. We reject these additional
bases.
The Attorney General quotes Rosenkrantz, supra,
29 Cal.4th at p. 682, for the proposition that “ ‘The nature of the
prisoner’s offense, alone, can constitute a sufficient basis for
denying parole.’ ” The Supreme Court later held in Lawrence,
however, that “the aggravated nature of the crime does not in
and of itself provide some evidence of current dangerousness to
the public unless the record also establishes that something in
the prisoner’s pre- or postincarceration history, or his or her
current demeanor and mental state, indicates that the
implications regarding the prisoner’s dangerousness that derive
from his or her commission of the commitment offense remain
probative of the statutory determination of a continuing threat to
public safety.” (Supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214; see In re Swanigan
(2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [rejecting parole denial based on
circumstances of commitment offense when Board failed to link
those circumstances to a risk of current dangerousness].) As
discussed, in Lawrence, the court concluded the circumstances of
the inmate’s commitment offense was no longer predictive of her
risk of recidivism, given her stellar postconviction record.
(Lawrence, at p. 1226.) Lawrence compels the same conclusion
here.
52
The Attorney General argues that Van Houten is
inconsistent in her statements as to whether she willingly
participated in the murders or was “in a sort of unconscious state
due to obligation and indoctrination.” The Attorney General
contrasts Van Houten’s statements about taking part in the
murders to prove her devotion to Manson and the cult, and
statements that she “ ‘felt obligated to participate.’ ” The
Attorney General also notes Van Houten’s statement in
describing her actions during the murders that “ ‘none of this was
conscious.’ ”
We disagree with the Attorney General’s characterization
of the record, which takes Van Houten’s statements out of
context. Van Houten never denied, either in her CRA interview
or at her parole hearing, that she was anything less than a
willing participant in the murders. Certainly Manson’s
indoctrination led her to believe in his divinity and the rightness
of his cause, but she did not claim she was not acting of her own
free will. The full quotation referenced by the Attorney General
reads, “I believed in Manson. I believed in his belief system, I felt
obligated to participate. I wanted to participate. I believed that
it was something that had to be done.” This cannot be read as
Van Houten suggesting she was “obligated” through some
unconscious urge, when in the very next sentence she
emphasized that she “wanted to participate.”
As for Van Houten’s statement in describing the murders
that “none of this was conscious,” this specifically related to her
actions during the murders themselves, not her willingness to
participate in the murders. Van Houten made the statement to
the CRA evaluator after describing how she held Mrs. La Bianca
down while Krenwinkel stabbed her. Van Houten stated, “ ‘I
53
went to hold her down and she began to hear Mr. La Bianca
dying. She yelled out for her husband. I was trying to hold her
down and Pat went to stab her and hit the collar bone and it [the
knife] bent. And I ran to the door of the bedroom, said, “We can’t
do it. We can’t kill her.” [Charles Tex Watson] came into the
bedroom, Pat went into the living room, I stood at the doorway,
none of this was conscious, I was running on fear. Tex had
stabbed her. I assumed she was dead. That’s been an issue of
controversy for Board hearings. She could have been alive, but I
assumed she was dead, Tex said, “Do something,” and handed me
a knife. So, I stabbed her in the lower torso 16 times.”
The above context makes clear that Van Houten was not
suggesting she did not consciously participate in the murders—
such an interpretation is inconsistent with her many other
statements indicating her desire and willingness to participate.
Rather, Van Houten was describing the chaos that ensued once
the murders began, and how she took certain actions without
thinking. She emphasized to the Board, however, that
throughout the killings she remained conscious of her desire to
please Manson, stating, “I became very critical of myself [during
the killings] because I felt that I wasn’t carrying my weight,” by
which she meant she was not doing enough to “mutilate” and kill
the La Biancas as Manson had directed.
The trial court read the Governor’s decision to fault
Van Houten for minimizing her role in the La Bianca murders.
The trial court referenced Van Houten’s statement that
Krenwinkel, not Van Houten, initially stabbed Mrs. La Bianca,
and also Van Houten’s statement that she believed
Mrs. La Bianca already was dead when she stabbed her.
54
We will accept arguendo the trial court’s reading of the
Governor’s decision. Even so, we fail to see how Van Houten
admitting she held Mrs. La Bianca down so Krenwinkel
could stab her minimizes Van Houten’s role in the murder.
Van Houten’s statement that she believed Mrs. La Bianca was
dead before Van Houten herself stabbed her cannot, in context,
be read as an attempt to minimize Van Houten’s culpability,
when, as previously discussed, Van Houten admitted that during
the murders she felt frustration that she wasn’t doing more to
contribute to the crimes. Further, as discussed, Van Houten’s
repeatedly admitted that she willingly engaged in the
commitment offenses, spurred on by her belief in Manson’s
ideology and her desire to please him. Again, we fail to see how
this could be read as an attempt to minimize her culpability.
Referring to Van Houten’s statements in the CRA
regarding her brief marriage following her third trial in 1978, our
dissenting colleague contends there is a modicum of evidence that
Van Houten continues to lack insight into her life offenses
because she “failed to identify parallels between her relationship
with Manson . . . and her marriage years later to another man
seeking to exploit her.” (Dis. opn., post, p. 7.) Acknowledging no
one at the parole hearing actually asked Van Houten to discuss
that marriage or whether it had similarities to her relationship to
Manson, the dissent nonetheless argues Van Houten should have
“independently identif[ied] the possibility that similar tendencies
were at play when she married a man who, like Manson, sought
to exploit her.” (Id. at p. 8.)
We are unwilling to hold against a parole candidate a
failure independently to raise an issue from decades earlier that
no one—not the parole board, the district attorney, nor the
55
Governor—inquired about or discussed. To do so is
fundamentally unfair, and imposes obstacles a parole candidate
cannot reasonably be expected to overcome.
Also, the fact that no one has raised the issue of
Van Houten’s marriage decades ago in any recent parole
proceeding means that the record has virtually no information
regarding that marriage that would allow us to compare it to
Van Houten’s relationship with Manson. The record before us
reveals nothing about Van Houten’s interactions or
communications with her ex-husband, how much time they spent
together, or the circumstances of their divorce. We therefore
cannot assume, as does the dissent, that the marriage had
“parallels” to Van Houten’s relationship with Manson. (See dis.
opn., post, p. 7.)
Even if, arguendo, there were such parallels, we reject the
dissent’s assumption that, because Van Houten did not raise the
issue of her marriage in her most recent parole proceeding, she
therefore has never acknowledged those parallels. Since her
divorce, Van Houten has had decades of rehabilitative
programming, therapy, psychological evaluations, risk
assessments, and parole hearings. The record before us covers
only the most recent few years of that history. To assume an
issue not raised in the recent record has never been addressed in
the previous decades is speculation and not “some” evidence.
We respectfully disagree with the dissent’s contention that
the record before us is not sufficiently different from the record in
Van Houten’s 2019 habeas corpus petition, which a majority of
56
the panel denied in an unpublished opinion,11 to support a
different result. Any ambiguity the majority identified in the
2019 record regarding Van Houten’s sense of personal
responsibility and remorse for her crimes is absent from the
record now before us.12 As discussed above, Van Houten made
clear in her 2020 parole hearing that she was a willing,
enthusiastic participant in the murders, and she described in
detail her remorse and the impact of her crimes on the victims’
family members and the nation as a whole.
C. We Do Not Reach Van Houten’s Remaining
Arguments
Van Houten raises a number of arguments in addition to
challenging the evidentiary basis of the Governor’s decision,
including that the Governor violated her due process rights by
reversing her parole without allowing Van Houten personally to
appear before him; the Governor failed to give great weight to
Van Houten’s status as a youthful offender; Van Houten’s
continued incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment under the United States and California
Constitutions; Van Houten was wrongly denied access to
exculpatory evidence, namely audio recordings of interviews with
Charles Tex Watson; and the Governor’s power to reverse parole
violates constitutional principles of equal protection “by creating
a different parole standard for inmates whose murder convictions
arise from celebrated or notorious crimes.”
11 In re Van Houten (Sept. 20, 2019, B291024) [nonpub.
opn.].
12
In her dissent to our 2019 opinion, Justice Chaney read
the record to require Van Houten’s release then.
57
Because we grant Van Houten’s petition for lack of some
evidence in support of the Governor’s decision, we decline to
reach these alternative arguments, on which we express no
opinion.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The
Governor’s decision reversing the Board of Parole Hearings’
July 2020 decision finding Leslie Van Houten suitable for parole
is vacated, the grant of parole is reinstated, and the Board of
Parole Hearings is directed to conduct its usual proceedings for a
release on parole. (See In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
BENDIX, J.
I concur:
CHANEY, J.
58
ROTHSCHILD, P. J., Dissenting.
I disagree with the majority because, in my view, the record
contains some evidence to support the Governor’s decision to
reverse Leslie Van Houten’s 2020 grant of parole in at least two
ways. First, the current record and the record before this court
in 2019 are not so materially different as to warrant our reaching
a different result today than we did in considering Van Houten’s
2019 petition. The current record supports the Governor’s
reversal for the same reasons the record in 2019 supported the
Governor’s reversal: Some evidence indicates Van Houten still
“minimize[s] her role in the murder[s] of [Rosemary and Leno]
La Bianca[ ], thus indicating a lack of insight into her crimes.”
(In re Van Houten (Sept. 20, 2019, B291024) [nonpub. opn.].)
Second, the record contains some evidence that Van Houten has
failed to show sufficient insight by failing to make a connection
between her relationship with Charles Manson and her prison
marriage to a man who sought to take advantage of her.
Van Houten’s lack of insight into the commitment offense
in these two ways “indicates that the implications regarding
[her] dangerousness that derive from . . . her commission of
the commitment offense remain probative of the statutory
determination of a continuing threat to public safety.” (In re
Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1214 (Lawrence).) This, when
combined with “the aggravated circumstances of the commitment
offense . . . provide[s] some evidence of current dangerousness
to the public.” (Ibid., italics omitted; see ibid. [permitting court
to rely on aggravated circumstances of offense as a basis for
denying parole if “the record also establishes that something in
the prisoner’s pre- or postincarceration history, or his or her
current demeanor and mental state” connects the circumstances
of that crime with current dangerousness].) Accordingly, and as
I explain in further detail below, I dissent.
In 2019, this court concluded that Van Houten had failed to
take sufficient responsibility for participation in the commitment
offenses, because she stated that she accepted responsibility for
committing her crimes, notwithstanding that her description
of how she came to commit them focused on Manson having
manipulated her, i.e., she blamed Manson more than she blamed
herself. As evidence supporting this conclusion, we cited her
2017 parole hearing testimony, which we concluded could be
understood as her “qualify[ing] the responsibility she feels for
the crimes by emphasizing Manson’s role.” (In re Van Houten,
supra, B291024.) And we noted that, at the 2017 hearing,
“ ‘Van Houten explained that she “desperately wanted to be
what [Manson] envisioned us being.” She admitted that following
the Tate murders, she wanted to participate in the La Bianca
murders because she “wanted to go and commit to the cause, too.”
Van Houten told the [parole b]oard she committed the crimes in
order to “prove my dedication to the revolution and what I knew
would need to be done to, um, have proved myself to Manson.” ’ ”
(Ibid.)
We recognized in our 2019 decision, however, that
Van Houten had also made statements during the 2017 parole
hearing that “show[ed] some willingness to accept responsibility”
both for her crimes and for Manson’s ability to manipulate her.
(In re Van Houten, supra, B291024.) For example, we recognized
that she had stated in her 2017 testimony: “ ‘I take responsibility
for the entire crime. I take responsibility going back to Manson
being able to do what he did to all of us. I allowed it.’ Then,
2
‘I take responsibility for Mrs. La Bianca, Mr. La Bianca.’ ”
(Ibid.) Nevertheless, we viewed it as “[s]ignificant[ ]” that,
“when the district attorney later requested clarification whether
Van Houten was taking responsibility for her actions, or only
for allowing Manson to influence how she conducted her life,
Van Houten replied, ‘I take responsibility that I allowed myself
to follow him, and in that, I take responsibility for the actions
that I did by allowing him to influence me in the manner
that he did . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . without minimizing my—my,
uh, involvement.’ ” (Ibid.) Based on these types of statements,
we concluded Van Houten was “[unable] . . . to discuss that
responsibility [for the murders she committed] except through
the lens of Manson’s influence” and that this “reasonably could
suggest to the Governor that Van Houten has not accepted
full moral culpability for her actions, that is, that she considers
herself less blameworthy because she committed her crimes at
Manson’s behest” and viewed herself as more of a victim than
a perpetrator. (Ibid.) “This in turn create[d] concern that
Van Houten presents a current danger, because in emphasizing
Manson’s influence, she minimizes the fact that she chose,
indeed enthusiastically, to murder the La Biancas.” (Ibid.)
At the 2020 parole hearing at issue in the instant petition,
Van Houten’s testimony likewise contains both types of
statements. On the one hand, she stated—as she did in 2017—
that she accepts responsibility for participating in the La Bianca
murders and that she wanted to participate in them. On
the other hand, she focused heavily—as she did in 2017—on
Manson’s manipulation of her and how such manipulation and
a desire to be accepted by Manson led her to commit murder
on his command. Often, these two types of statements are
3
combined into a single answer. For example, when asked why
she continued to follow Manson after his plans started “moving
towards violence,” Van Houten indicated: “I believed in Manson.
I believed in his belief system[;] I felt obligated to participate
[in the murders]. I wanted to participate. I believed that it
was something that had to be done.” When asked to discuss
the causative factors leading to the murders, she described being
“at an all-time bottom low.” She stated: “[T]he things that made
me weak and lost were ultimately used as manipulations against
me in my conversations with Manson and how [he] chose to relate
to me.” “I allowed myself to make the group more important
than my early teachings of right and wrong.” Also in the context
of describing the causative factors leading to the murder, she
described her relationship with Manson as one “where one
participant needs to be in control and the other person needs to
have someone take control.” In this context, she stated: “I didn’t
know what I was doing[;] I didn’t know where I was going.” She
further said that, because she viewed Manson as “Christ-come
back, I was obligated [to do what he said]. Because I was close
to him, I was obligated to see through what he knew had to
happen.”
The majority concludes that such statements from the
2020 hearing “cannot be read as Van Houten suggesting she
was ‘obligated’ through some unconscious urge,” because in
them she also “emphasize[s] that she ‘wanted to participate
[in the murders].’ ” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 53.) But at the 2017
hearing, as noted above, Van Houten likewise emphasized
that she “wanted” to participate in the murders, and expressly
accepted responsibility for the murders and her actions leading
to them. This is thus not a point of distinction between the 2017
4
and 2020 testimony, and not a basis for reaching a different
conclusion than we did in 2019.
The majority concludes that, at the 2020 hearing, when
Van Houten discussed Manson’s effect on her, she was merely
recognizing that “Manson’s indoctrination led her to believe
in his divinity and the rightness of his cause, but she did not
claim she was not acting of her own free will.” (Maj. opn.
ante, at p. 53.) But one could also reasonably characterize
Van Houten’s 2020 description of Manson’s effect on her in a
different way. In 2019, we concluded that another reasonable
interpretation of such testimony was that Van Houten viewed
herself as less culpable due to being manipulated by Manson.
Because I see no material difference between the testimony
offered in 2017 and that offered in 2020 as to this issue, and
given our “extremely deferential” standard of review (In re
Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 665), I continue to view the
Governor as justified in rejecting the interpretation set forth by
the majority today and instead adopting an interpretation we
concluded in 2019 was reasonable. (See In re Shaputis (2011)
53 Cal.4th 192, 211 (Shaputis) [“[o]nly when the evidence
reflecting the inmate’s present risk to public safety leads to but
one conclusion may a court overturn a contrary decision
by . . . the Governor”].)
I do not view Van Houten’s more recent parole hearing
testimony regarding what she would do differently, were she
somehow given that opportunity, as materially different from her
testimony in response to the same question in 2017. At the 2017
parole hearing, “Van Houten replied that she would have stayed
at her father’s house and sought a job, the implication being that
had she done so, she would not have become involved with
5
Manson. Asked what one act by someone else she would change
if she could, she said she would have her father not leave her and
her mother.” (In re Van Houten, supra, B291024.) In our 2019
opinion, we concluded that this testimony reflected, “Van Houten,
[when] asked hypothetically to rewrite the past, focused on where
things went wrong for her personally rather than on the horrific
acts that followed.” (Ibid.) We noted that “[i]t was only in her
closing statement that she acknowledged the harm she caused
the La Biancas when she said, ‘I also want to apologize to all
of those in the room and those that are not for the damage that
I did and the stealing of their loved ones’ li[ves] in a senseless
manner. I apologize very deeply for that.’ ” (Ibid.)
At the 2020 parole hearing, when the board asked
Van Houten the same question, she likewise responded by first
focusing on how she might have acted differently vis-à-vis her
parents in her early years, and only later indicated she would
change her behavior with respect to the murders. Specifically,
she responded: “[I]t’s a multilayered question, you know. Early
on, what I would have done is I would have been more supportive
in hindsight of my mom when dad left. I wouldn’t have been
blaming her and becoming rebellious. I, I wish that I would have
been more steadfast in the direction my life was going. When I
look back, I wish that, had I ended up at the ranch and meeting
the people that I would have followed my intuitions that I got,
when things began to change and leave. Regarding the murders,
on hindsight, I wish I could have gone to the police and talked to
someone before it ever started.” When asked whether there was
anything else she would change, Van Houten again focused on
her lot in life as a teenager, rather than on the murders: “I would
not have started smoking marijuana. I would not have, uh,
6
gotten so involved with [the boyfriend who got her pregnant as
a teenager]. All of those things were spearheaded by my anger
and rebelliousness at my mom and feeling that dad had left me.”
Thus, in her 2020 response, Van Houten continued to
focus primarily on changing her lot in life early on, rather than
on her role in the murders. Van Houten did also mention in
her 2020 response that she would have called the police before
the murders took place, but I do not view this as reflecting
the insight one could reasonably conclude was lacking in
Van Houten’s 2017 answer. In both 2017 and 2020, Van Houten
indicated she would use a hypothetical ability to rewrite the past
first to change the circumstances in her life as a teenager, rather
than undo the murders she committed. In her 2020 response, she
merely appended to that response that she would also take steps
to prevent the murders. This response continues to suffer from
the same lack of insight we identified in 2019.
I further conclude that the record contains at least a
“ ‘modicum’ ” of evidence to support the Governor’s reversal of
parole in a manner not discussed in our 2019 opinion. (Shaputis,
supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 210.) Specifically, the record contains
evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that
Van Houten failed to identify parallels between her relationship
with Manson—a relationship in which, according to Van Houten,
Manson manipulated her and was able to do so because she was
desperately seeking his acceptance—and her marriage years
later to another man seeking to exploit her. The record reflects
Van Houten was married “briefly” to a parolee she met in the
visitors’ room while in prison. She initially was not aware that
this man—like Manson—“wanted to exploit [her].” Van Houten’s
counsel urges that, because Van Houten divorced the man after a
7
short time, the relationship actually indicates that Van Houten
has learned from the past. This is one, but certainly not the only
reasonable interpretation of the evidence. And the record does
not contain anything indicating Van Houten ever made the
connection that she, through this marriage, was again setting
herself on a path to be manipulated by a man. To the contrary,
Van Houten downplayed the relationship when speaking to the
parole board by indicating she “didn’t have any relationships
while in prison, but [rather] she wrote to a couple guys.”1
Van Houten’s counsel noted at the hearing before this
court that Van Houten was never asked whether there were
any similar tendencies at play in her prison marriage and her
relationship with Manson, and suggested we therefore should
not draw conclusions from her failure to identify such tendencies
or other similarities between the two relationships. But given
her claim that, through her extensive therapy and programs, she
has gained insight into how she came to commit heinous crimes
as a way to make a man “believe . . . in [her]” and “accept[ ]” her,
her failure to independently identify the possibility that similar
tendencies were at play when she married a man who, like
Manson, sought to exploit her, constitutes at least some evidence
that her insight into the causes of her crime is lacking.
In the foregoing ways, I conclude the record contains some
evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the commitment offense.
Coupled with the heinous nature of that crime, this is sufficient
1 Further information in the record about these
relationships is sparse, but includes evidence that Van Houten
corresponded for approximately 16 years with a man who
murdered two women, that this relationship was romantic in
nature, and that it ended because the man committed suicide.
8
under Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214, to provide some
evidence of current dangerousness and support the Governor’s
decision. Accordingly, I would deny Van Houten’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
9