16 (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal. Try again later. Although defense counsel failed to move for dismissal of this overt-act allegation, defendant asserts that this omission was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 19 [48 Cal. [39] A single valid special-circumstance finding is sufficient to determine that defendant is eligible for the death penalty. 23, We turn, therefore, to the question of prejudice. Ill be Looking forward to seeing you. [14a] Concerned about the implications of our discussion in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal. The questions concerning the validity of the witness-killing and torture-murder special circumstances are technical matters which do not affect the admissibility of evidence. In People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal. [31] Christina Dralle testified that when she rejected defendant's advances, he pulled a gun and said, "you wouldn't argue if I pulled the trigger." 3. 29 and he facetiously asked if Budds would like "to read and correct it." In order to intelligently exercise the right to challenge for cause defendant's counsel must be accorded reasonable opportunity to lay a foundation for the challenge by questioning the prospective jurors on voir dire to learn whether any entertain a fixed opinion of this nature." Defendant said it looked like "Cindy," and asked Lambert to add coat hangers and pliers to the picture. 3d 443, 455-456 [215 Cal. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, He then commented, without objection, that the jurors should make a consistent finding on all of the murders because "you have a chance of having your wishes carried out, as this case goes through the appellate court, more if you are consistent in your findings. 532]), and that he was dissatisfied with the jury as selected. Translation on Find a Grave is an ongoing project. 294.) [27] He maintains, however, that the objection was also based upon violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because Sergeant Budds asked him for the manuscript without giving Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L. Ed. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal. (P. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155], relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. 3d 1090] fairly and impartially judge and evaluate such a situation?" Defendant testified on his own behalf, and said that he was not involved in the abduction and murder of Lucinda Schaefer, but that Norris told him that Norris and another man had committed those crimes. [21] Juror Kuriki had not been exposed to media accounts of the case, and had no preformed opinions. 626] [torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation] [48 Cal. She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. [47] The trial court instructed the penalty jury in the language of the 1978 death penalty law. And the mitigating circumstances aren't going to make that scale even come off the ground. WebShirley Ledford was on her way home from a Halloween party when she was taken from outside a gas station in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los Angeles on Oct. 31, 1979. Search above to list available cemeteries. 3d 731, 763 (overruled on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal. Instructions that Norris was an accomplice. 329-330 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 240], quoting McGautha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183, 208 [28 L. Ed. Malin's testimony corresponded to Norris's account. A capital sentencing scheme relying on jury discretion, Caldwell said, assumes "'that jurors confronted with the truly awesome responsibility of decreeing death for a fellow human will act with due regard for the consequences of their decision [].' 359, 365-366 [28 P. 261], so holds. 469] and cases there cited). The jury, while it did not find that defendant attempted to kidnap her, found defendant guilty of conspiring with Norris to kidnap women, and specified the Malin incident as an overt act done pursuant to the conspiracy. 3d 314 [234 Cal. ), FN 20. Since Budds could have seized the manuscript without asking for or receiving consent, the issues defendant raises are immaterial to the validity of the seizure. Defendant and Norris picked them up in defendant's van. based on information from your browser. 2. The court overruled defendant's objection. The tape has never been released to the public. Defendant said that after making the tape he returned to his motel, leaving Ledford with Norris. Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. Rptr. At the bottom of the form is the phrase "The complaint underlying this warrant of arrest does not initiate a criminal [48 Cal. Limitation on death-qualifying voir dire. 3d 749 [251 Cal. In failing to so instruct, the court erred. fn. (P. Consequently defendant was not charged with the Robin R. crimes. 3d 258, 283 [148 Cal. The majority in North, supra, 8 Cal. fn. 3d 1106] Ketchel, supra, 59 Cal. (See People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal. 7. [6] Finally, defendant argues that even if his consent to the search was voluntary, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence. Problems stemming from the trial court's ruling arose frequently during the voir dire. On Halloween night, 1979, at approximately 10:30 p.m. Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford as she hitchhiked home from a Halloween party in Los Angeles. You have chosen this person to be their own family member. Lynettes autopsy revealed blunt force trauma to the head, face, and breasts, and her left elbow was completely shattered. She also had extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers. Under these circumstances it is not reasonably possible that the failure of the court to give a reasonable-doubt instruction affected the verdict. Further, the affidavit recounts a conversation between defendant and one of his fellow inmates, in which defendant admitted that he had sent Shoopman three photographs which show where defendant and Norris had dumped the bodies of the girls. Norris described the other photographs, which showed Hall nude in various poses. 3d 329, 361 [197 Cal. Juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, "That's hard to say." 662]: "Reported decisions in cases interpreting Penal Code section 872 [order holding defendant to answer] have uniformly held that the 'complaint' filed with the magistrate under Penal Code sections 813 and 806 serves only the purpose of providing a basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Upon their return, defendant took additional nude photographs of Gilliam. Rptr. In 1981, Bittaker was sentenced to death, The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989. 13. Failed to delete memorial. Rptr. [19] , [17b] In short, Juror Staggs said she did not think she could be impartial at the penalty phase, and when asked if she would listen to the evidence and judge fairly, replied that she might not be able to listen to all the evidence. [9] Defendant argues that assuming the seizure of the cassette tapes from his van was lawful, it was unlawful for the police to "search" (i.e., listen to) the Ledford tape without a warrant. Lamp's skull showed the effect of the hammer blows. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Some of these photographs came into possession of defense counsel, who turned them over to the police, and they were admitted into evidence. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal. 2d 720, 729-731 [16 Cal. But defendant never made such a motion. Juror Weaver initially said that she would automatically return a verdict of life imprisonment; she later equivocated, and the judge denied the prosecutor's challenge for cause. 345].). 5 In explanation, defendant said that the book was part fact, based on what he had been told by Norris, and part fiction. App. After she entered the van Norris, who had been hiding in the back, attacked her and after a fight managed to bind and gag her. Our recent opinion in People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal. Defendant's question to Jackson did not suggest any relationship between the attempted rape in April and the charged crimes that would render the evidence admissible, and when the court sustained an objection defendant made no offer of proof. (18 Cal.3d at p. 173, fn. (See People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. ). 534, 547), that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates only to a particular doctrine of law." The time for obtaining copies of evidence and submitting them to expert examination is before trial, not during the prosecution's case. 649, 491 P.2d 1]). (People v. [48 Cal. Or life imprisonment without possibility of parole? 555 [110 P. Defendant characterizes the prosecutor's argument here as coming within the framework of Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, but the frame does not fit. [3a] [4a] Defendant argues that during his arrest the police failed to comply with sections 844 and 1531 because they failed to identify themselves as police officers or to explain the purpose of their demand for [48 Cal. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Defendant signed autographs for other prisoners using that nickname. 121, 754 P.2d 168, A.L.R.4th 1507], concerned a different situation. Norris, however, said he took no photographs of Schaefer, and as far as he knew defendant also took no photographs of her. 409, 439 P.2d 321]; People v. Blair (1975) 51 Cal. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. 3d 1077] to determine the van's "evidentiary value" as is permitted by the Teale (supra, 70 Cal.2d 497) line of cases. But when the context does not suggest appellate correction of an erroneous death verdict, the danger that a jury will feel a lesser sense of responsibility for its verdict is minimal. 637, 709 P.2d 440]. Since this case arose prior to the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, defendant relies on the vicarious exclusionary rule established by earlier California decisions (People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal. Defendant objects to testimony concerning his attempt to abduct Jan Malin because he was not charged in this proceeding with any crime against Malin. (Rogers, at p. (Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children. So I can't just sit here and tell you." Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. Continuing with this request will add an alert to the cemetery page and any new volunteers will have the opportunity to fulfill your request. We conclude that the court should have sustained the challenge for cause. FN 22. 27, Defendant raises 40 guilt phase issues. As was the case with the listening to the Ledford tape, the [48 Cal. WebShirley Ledford's body was discovered shortly after she was killed. The prosecutor's appeal, to be sure, was largely aimed at the emotions of the jury, but at the penalty phase, where the issue is whether defendant should be killed, considerable leeway is given for emotional appeal so long as it relates to relevant considerations. In that case the witness had a privilege not to testify. cemeteries found in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles County, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list. I felt like I was sweating but I wasnt. 3d 635, 659, in which the prosecutor told the jury that the law "takes a little bit of sting out in the sense that you have to decide facts. 3d 1105] rape was not forcible went beyond the evidence. Defendant then drove into the mountains, driving beyond the site of the other two murders. After finding several letters from Richard Shoopman to Norris and defendant during the search of Norris's residence, the police became interested in the extent of Shoopman's knowledge of and possession of evidence of the alleged crimes. Defendant's argument mistakenly assumes that his consent was essential to the validity of the seizure of the manuscript. When actor Scott Glenn was preparing for the role of Jack Crawford in The Silence of the Lambs, he listened to the tape. See other search results for Shirley Lynette Ledford Ready to discover your family story? Thus while we advise against language in a plea bargain which purports to give the district attorney, and not the court, discretion to determine whether the witness testified truthfully, we find no reversible error. We note also that considerable time elapsed between the date of the motion and Douglas's actual testimony, during which defendant could have investigated Douglas. Judicial limitations on voir dire vary in scope and severity, and in their impact on the jury selection and the ultimate outcome of trial. But when defendant appeared at the window, an announcement of purpose before arresting him would have been hazardous. Rest forever in peace Shirley Lynette Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes. over 130). Use the links under See more to quickly search for other people with the same last name in the same cemetery, city, county, etc. [S]ome cases are so brutal, so vicious, so horrendous, so inhumane that in order for us to exist as a society, we have to totally repudiate the conduct involved and we have to say, 'we will not accept it, we will not allow it, and the one mainly responsible for it has to suffer the supreme penalty.' With respect to six of the seven instances cited, we see no arguable basis for claiming that defendant's absence "prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial." ", Defense counsel responded: "Judge, what I'm concerned about, and I think the record should be made clear, is that you've indicated, if I'm interpreting correctly that in reference and regards to the death qualifying questions that neither Mr. Kay [the prosecutor] nor I would be permitted to ask any questions. The provision in the agreement providing for judicial review to determine whether the district attorney abused his discretion is troubling. 3d 512 [220 Cal. They then drove to a remote area, and started to torture her, Bittaker immediately turned on the tape recorder and started slapping and beating Shirley. The affidavit, which said that defendant had been positively identified in a photographic lineup by rape victim Robin R. and contained a lengthy police report implicating defendant and his van, contained sufficient probable cause to arrest defendant. 2d 842 [56 Cal. Rptr. There are no volunteers for this cemetery. She responded with an unqualified "yes." The conference at which the court made its ruling was unreported. Learn about how to make the most of a memorial. Resend Activation Email, Please check the I'm not a robot checkbox, If you want to be a Photo Volunteer you must enter a ZIP Code or select your location on the map. fn. Staggs told the judge that she had worked at a rape crisis center, and did not believe she would be impartial in a case involving charges of rape. 3d 1073], All that is lacking by way of full compliance with section 844 is an announcement of the officer's purpose. During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." Rptr. Defendant then parked the van a short distance down the street. 8 that a complaint is a document which institutes a criminal proceeding, fn. Since that classification is a technical one, which would have to be explained to the jury, and when explained would add little to the case, we believe the trial court's ruling was within its discretion. fn. After reading a list of the 11 statutory factors under section [48 Cal. 440, 710 P.2d 240]. [28] Defendant claims that because the 1974 offense had almost no marks of similarity with the charged crimes, evidence showing the nature of that offense was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101. At trial, confronted with the tape, Bittaker actually had the audacity to claim that it was just a threesome, and pointed out that Lynette had asked them to kill her. The United States Supreme Court reversed the penalty, holding that "it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Since defendant did not claim that any of the 12 jurors who heard the case were subject to challenge for cause, or were not impartial, his right to an impartial jury was not abridged.
Millhaven Institution Notable Inmates,
Zima Anderson Siblings,
Duracell Ceo Salary,
Articles S
shirley lynette ledford autopsy