WebGetentrepreneurial.com: Resources for Small Business Entrepreneurs in 2022. (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal. The prosecutor's argument properly placed the greatest emphasis on the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case. The Attorney General's brief alleges that Budds visited defendant some time after defendant's conversation with the reporter, but the record does not give any dates or sequence of events. Denial of defendant's challenges for cause. 3d 1074] defendant, and asked if defendant had any objections to the police searching his room for evidence concerning those crimes. (d) The attempted abduction of Jan Malin. App. Defendant raped her, then Norris a second time. Section 1101, subdivision (a), however, prohibits the use of prior specific conduct only "when offered to prove [defendant's] conduct on a specified occasion." Ledford's bracelet was discovered in Norris's apartment. Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].). 128, 616 P.2d 1301], where we explained how the death-qualifying process can bias the jury, the trial court here decided to limit that process as much as possible. Norris was required to testify truthfully. App. Most of the killings involved the rape and torture of the victims. In discussing the murder of Cindy Schaefer, the prosecutor said: "And then her body is thrown over so that the coyotes and the maggots and the beetles can finish her off so that nobody will find her. FN 34. Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1], which states the law governing defendant's trial, a felony conviction was admissible to impeach only if the offense bore upon veracity. He testified that he and Norris picked up Andrea Hall when she was hitchhiking, and offered her $200 for sex and photographs, to which she agreed. Psychologist Michael Maloney testified for the defense. 3d 1082] It formulated four specific questions, which were put to all jurors, and refused to permit further questions from counsel. While driving in Manhattan Beach they saw Andrea Hall, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington. Failed to remove flower. fn. Juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, "That's hard to say." Is that true?" On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. 7. When it was Norris's turn to wait outside again, he thought he saw headlights coming up the fire road. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]: the judgment will be affirmed unless we find a reasonable possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict had the errors not occurred. During the first day of jury selection, jurors were questioned individually in chambers concerning their views of the death penalty. Defendant bought a van, choosing one with sliding doors to make it easier to seize a victim and drag her into the van. based on information from your browser. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155], relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. It dismissed five additional jurors, bringing its total to twenty-six, but did not utilize the two extra challenges given it by the judge. 780, 633 P.2d 976].) Upon accepting the offer of a lift home and entering the van, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, which she refused. 81 [273 P. 575], the court affirmed a judgment, despite erroneous restriction of voir dire, because defendant confessed from the stand, "the result was just, and would have been reached if the error had not been committed." [7] Defendant contends that the warrantless seizure of his van following his arrest was illegal because the officers did not come upon the van "inadvertently" (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443 [29 L. Ed. 2d 393, 402-403, 104 S.Ct. 23, We turn, therefore, to the question of prejudice. He told Norris he had taken more pictures. He agreed to pay her $500 a day. 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. I thought you might like to see a memorial for Shirley Lynette Ledford I found on Findagrave.com. Defendant met Roy Norris while they were inmates in state prison. With respect to the other issues, since defendant failed to object, we must consider whether the harm could have been cured by a timely admonition. Neither permitted a court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers. The evidence included testimony concerning defendant's discussion of his sexual fantasies with Richard Shoopman, various sadomasochistic and bondage magazines found in defendant's possession, and evidence [48 Cal. She turned onto a residential street. App. Perhaps so; one can argue that evidence that a defendant has been in jail most of his life and has an antisocial personality disorder is not likely to sway a jury in his favor. (See People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal. 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. Defendant's case is distinguishable from the cases upon which he relies (People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 247, 267 [221 Cal. In this case, as in most, our inquiry begins by examining the prosecutor's penalty phase argument. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE SIGMOND BITTAKER, Defendant and Appellant, (Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.). 28 The prosecution objected to taking the original tape from the court, and the court refused to permit any copying. Norris testified, however, that all were immediately subdued, and then transported a considerable distance against their will. If you have questions, please contact [emailprotected]. One of these photographs, which shows Hall about to perform oral copulation on defendant, is in evidence. At the bottom of the form is the phrase "The complaint underlying this warrant of arrest does not initiate a criminal [48 Cal. [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. Steven Eastman, a visitor at the motel, also heard the tape. Norris does not mention torture.) Your Scrapbook is currently empty. 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. 317, 628 P.2d 869], which broadened the scope of voir dire to permit examination for peremptory challenge), a party was entitled to put questions which might expose a basis for a challenge for cause. 7. If requested by Roy Lewis Norris, Superior Court Judge Edward Hinz of the Southwest Judicial District shall determine whether or not there has been an abuse of such authority and discretion." 803, 673 P.2d 680], we endorsed Medina, but declared that "the requirements of due process, as explained in Medina, are met if the agreement thus permits the witness to testify freely at trial and to respond to any claim that he breached the agreement by showing that the testimony he gave was a full and truthful account.". 2d 360, 388 [14 Cal. Are you adding a grave photo that will fulfill this request? Question three asked: "Do you have such a conscientious opinion or religious conviction regarding the death penalty that if you found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and you found the special circumstances alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?" App. ", Defendant challenges five of the thirty-eight special circumstance findings. He continued: "Has he earned the death penalty for the barbaric and callous nature of his crimes which has shocked the public conscience and greatly affected all of us? The trial judge had excluded evidence of this event because of the difficulty in explaining MDSO classification and procedure to the jury. 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. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. 3d 258, 283 [148 Cal. Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! 3d 1084] 617, 367 P.2d 33]: "[C]ounsel for a defendant in a capital case has the right to question the prospective jurors on voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining whether any would vote to impose the death penalty without regard to the evidence in the event of a conviction. Use Escape keyboard button or the Close button to close the carousel. Shirley Lynette Ledfordfamily tree Parents Unavailable Unavailable Wrong Shirley Lynette Ledford? 3d 36, 67.) People v. Barrett (1929) 207 Cal. He described defendant's lengthy criminal career dating from adolescence, but noted that [48 Cal. Failed to delete memorial. She recalled that the case involved people being picked up and raped in a van, and also that pictures were taken of the people who were killed. Defendant took Hall into some bushes by the road while Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for the intruder. App. Lawfulness of search of impounded van. (Compare People v. Hoban (1985) 176 Cal. 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. (CALJIC No. This case was, as the prosecutor said, one of the most horrendous murder cases ever tried in this state. Defendant, on the other hand, seldom talked to Shoopman about sex. (Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children. Rptr. Lynette was abducted, assaulted and killed by two male subjects. The prosecution then called another psychiatrist, Dr. Markman, in rebuttal. (Hill, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. The book itself was not put into evidence. FN 23. Edit a memorial you manage or suggest changes to the memorial manager. Defendant returned to the van, aroused Lamp (who had been forced to take tranquilizers to keep her quiet), and as she stepped out of the van, struck her with a sledgehammer. In June of 1979 Norris attempted to rape a woman, but she escaped. Rptr. 3d 912, 924 [92 Cal. Even if the court had already reached a tentative decision, it could have reconsidered on the basis of any new information presented. 3d 826, 834 [164 Cal.Rptr. 3d 301 [104 Cal. The prosecution may not comment upon a defendant's failure to call a witness if the defendant has a privilege to bar disclosure of that witness's testimony. (P. 3d 1222, 1276-1277 [232 Cal. fn. When Norris returned, they drove to a new location. Richard Dryburgh, another resident of the Scott Motel, testified in return for dismissal of a charge of possession of an explosive. Are you sure that you want to remove this flower? 10. And it does not permit the jury to determine what penalty is appropriate after the weighing process because, according to the prosecutor, if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating the jurors have no choice but to impose the death penalty. Rptr. After the arresting officers had notified the Hermosa Beach police department that they had defendant in custody, the officers were informed that defendant may have been involved in "some 187's [murders] of females, that there was Mace or some other type of chemical agent used in one of the attacks," and that some of the victims may have been photographed. (P. 11. This instruction was legally correct. In any case, this remote sort of office gossip would fall within the statute as public rumor. The bodies of Lucinda Schaefer and Andrea Hall were never found. The prosecution did not introduce the book in its case-in-chief, but made use of it, over defense objection, in cross-examining defendant. Norris could not get the hanger tight enough, but defendant used pliers to tighten it and kill Schaefer. The district attorney objected. 82, 739 P.2d 1250] further declares that "where equivocal or conflicting responses are elicited , the trial court's determination to his true state of mind is binding on an appellate court.". You have chosen this person to be their own family member. Norris said he had told Schaefer that she would not be killed, but defendant insisted on killing her so she could not identify them. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Hello Kitty Murder Case The most disturbing Hello Kitty Murder Case came to light when medianet_width = "300"; 34 [48, 49] We find no reversible error. Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more! Juror Gwen Pico told the outlet she "tried keep an open mind but that the tape was very damaging, it stunned us all," while another juror said after listening to it, "I had a dream I was coming down an elevator at the courthouse and when it opened Bittaker was standing there and he threw cinders in my face.". The officers ultimately seized numerous photographs, several police scanners, a replica .45 caliber gun, several bottles and jars of chemicals, pornographic film, and various other items. Shoopman denied receiving such a letter, and the prosecutor did not mention the matter further. Rptr. He claimed, however, that his purpose was not to kidnap Malin, but to test the effectiveness of Mace as a defensive weapon. But the further implication that Norris had no history of violent rape probably could not have been cured without informing the jury that Norris had such a history. Rptr. From June through October of 1979, defendant and Roy Norris kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls in the Los Angeles [48 Cal. Defense counsel interpreted that answer as an automatic vote for death; the court interpreted it differently. Try again. Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1 [17 L. Ed. 2. 752 [127 P. 58] (overruled prospectively in People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal. (40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. We have already examined the penalty phase errors, and concluded that each was not prejudicial. 3d 1092] facie showing of group bias, thus shifting to the prosecutor the burden to justify his challenges. The judge, however, refused to admit the drawings into evidence, ruling that they would be more prejudicial than probative. Hein responded, "That's correct.". It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. 9 and thus that a document which says it does not institute criminal proceedings cannot be the basis for an arrest warrant. Such a proceeding would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand. 2d 287, 292, fn. 3d 480 [124 Cal.Rptr. Searches pursuant to a warrant of defendant's van, storage boxes, and jail cell. 2d 564, 91 S.Ct. We said in Hovey that "In a typical death-qualifying voir dire, the judge and the attorneys repeatedly instruct the jurors about the steps leading to the penalty trial and question each prospective juror, oftentimes at considerable length, concerning his or her attitudes about capital punishment. But defendant did not allege then, and does not now claim, that such an arrangement was feasible. The prosecutor then put on further evidence of defendant's 1974 assault on a store clerk. Section 844 provides in relevant part: "To make an arrest a peace officer may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is , after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired." ), FN 20. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. (59 Cal.2d at p. After the officers were stationed at all of defendant's windows, Officer Valento knocked on the door of defendant's motel room. Our recent opinion in People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal. This memorial has been copied to your clipboard. Rptr. Under the circumstances of this case, however, there is no significant danger that the jury would impute Norris's admitted guilt to defendant. Defendant approached, sprayed her with Mace, and attempted to drag her into the van. (People v. Lo Cigno (1961) 193 Cal. The two then opted to dump her body on a random lawn in the Sunland neighborhood, because they wanted to see the press reaction to its discovery. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. In Nye, supra, 71 Cal. And nobody has found her. A while later Norris returned alone, and told defendant that Hall could find her own way home. (Bittaker subsequently earned the nickname Pliers from his desire to twist and tear girls nipples with his pliers he had used them in the torment of at least one previous victim.). fn. Rptr. 22. Shirley Lynette Ledford celebrated her last birthday 32 years ago when she was 16. 2. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Defense counsel sought to ask jurors whether they believed an accomplice who only aided and abetted a robbery, and did not intend to kill, should be punished as severely as the actual killer. 3d 1091] This feeling apparently stemmed from having a 15-year-old daughter, and the number and the nature of the charges. 26 Her voir dire presents no unqualified statement that she actually felt that she could be fair and impartial in the penalty phase of this case. (We express no opinion as to whether the evidence might also be admissible to prove identity under Evidence Code section 1101.). Defendant and Norris had seen a gangster movie while in prison in which the villain killed his victims in this fashion. 83, 759 P.2d 1260]. Defendant admitted the assault on Malin. 1454].) If the prosecutor had exercised the two additional challenges, however, we would face a quite different situation, since the prosecutor did not claim that the court had erroneously denied any of his challenges for cause. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. After the third knock, the bathroom window to the immediate right of the door was opened by the defendant, who asked, "Who is it?" Errors involving additional special circumstances, while they may prejudicially affect the penalty trial, do not undermine the verdict at the close of the guilt phase of the trial. 6 based upon an affidavit filed by a Sergeant Bynum of the Hermosa Beach police department. 2447].) 2d 497, 511, italics in original.) 3d 1 [139 Cal. He took a clothes hanger, and looped it around her neck. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. The court sustained the prosecutor's objection. 3d 258, 280.) We do not believe they can be altered by contract so as to limit the court to reviewing the district attorney's discretionary finding as to whether Norris told the truth. 2d 776, 88 S.Ct. [O]ne of the questions I do remember was about listening to gruesome testimony. 422.). Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. defendant said that kidnapping with bodily harm carried a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reasoned that the right of peremptory challenge is not itself of constitutional dimension; it is a means to protect the constitutional right to an impartial jury. 3d 1222. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account. ( 1538.5, subd. The majority in North, supra, 8 Cal. He then pushed the ice pick through Gilliam's ear; she screamed and fell dead. Therefore, when the trial court denied defendant's suppression motion, it necessarily ruled on the voluntariness of defendant's consent. 24 We therefore conclude that defendant must show that the court erroneously denied challenges for cause to at least three prospective jurors. Sergeant Farrand, an officer participating in defendant's arrest, testified that Officer Valento announced that it was the Burbank police after knocking on the door. 3d 1075] pistol, and chemicals. It's his home. DESPICABLE PAIR BOTH DEATH. Rather, we affirmed in each case because the majority concluded that the prosecutor's remarks did not have the effect of misleading the jury as to its responsibility to determine the appropriate penalty. 3d 731, 758 [117 Cal. Three days after the police seized defendant's van, Sergeant Bynum and another officer entered it to search for bloodstains, semen stains, and other evidence of Ms. R.'s rape. Conversely, Officer Valento testified that he "didn't announce [his] presence at all when [he was] knocking.". 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. Finally, the jury found at least 14 valid special circumstances -- far more than is found in most death penalty cases. [1b] Defendant contends that an arrest warrant can issue only upon a complaint, fn. He also called Dr. Tronkman, a psychiatrist, who testified that defendant may have committed the 1974 assault while in an altered state of consciousness. Upptck. If the only problem was the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence -- his assertion that Norris's 1976 conviction was for rape by threat, when the record was silent on the point -- the matter could have been redressed by timely admonition. 2d 356 [78 Cal. There is no evidence that any victim went voluntarily to the place of her death, and only then was restrained against her will. Since the prosecutor already had five challenges remaining, we doubt that the effect was signficant. The prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. If they do "then you would be duty bound to impose a death verdict." When answers were ambiguous, the judge sometimes asked further questions, but did not permit counsel to ask questions on this subject. App. 14 Any delay would have allowed him to duck back inside the room and resist entry. ). Rptr. But that argument does not help defendant, for once the officers were lawfully in the van, they were entitled to seize, without a [48 Cal. We have set your language to She agreed. When Schaefer walked by, he grabbed her and dragged her into the van. If you notice a problem with the translation, please send a message to [emailprotected] and include a link to the page and details about the problem. Defendant also claims other portions of the prosecutor's argument were misconduct: 1. 467, 755 P.2d 917]; People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal. Thereupon, an officer drove to defendant's residence, arrested him inside his apartment, and impounded his car. Defendant drove by and offered her a ride, but she refused. While defendant drove away, Norris bound and gagged the victim. 442], defendant, an attorney, was accused of defrauding a senile client. Defendant suggests that these provisions required him to testify that defendant participated in the murders, even if that testimony were untrue. 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. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. Although the trial court's policy is understandable in light of what we said in Hovey, supra, 28 Cal. Defendant drove to another place, said he wanted to rape Hall again, and again took her to a hill near the road. (Id., at p. 305, italics added.) Ledford was tortured and murdered by two men named Roy Norris and Lawrence Bittaker, known as "The Toolbox Killers." Warning Sensitive Content: Click here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. Bittaker, however, had pleaded not guilty. But defendant had no [48 Cal. In the trial court defendant objected to the admission of evidence seized in these searches on the ground that the warrant was based on an affidavit containing reference to the contents of the Ledford tape, which was allegedly illegally seized. He argues that the testimony was improper under Evidence Code section 730 because defendant did not put his mental state in issue. 3d 1, 28 [164 Cal. Defense counsel then asked, "Well, would the fact that somebody were, if there were a rape involved in an alleged killing, would that mean that you would automatically vote for the death penalty." This opinion was based on reading newspaper accounts of the case. App. Section 806 provides in relevant part: "A proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of an offense originally triable in a superior court must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and filed with the magistrate. Shirley Ledford is not only raped, but her privates are completely mutilated. 626] [torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation] [48 Cal. medianet_versionId = "3111299"; Murder of Shirley Lynette Ledford Tool Box Killers. The tape recording of the torture of Shirley Ledford was discovered in defendant's van. It had learned of defendant's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, and Shoopman's prior conviction for murder. ), [26] Defendant now contends that since this evidence was excluded at the preliminary examination, the accompanying overt-act allegation should have been dismissed on a motion under section 995. App. Learning that she was a virgin, he set up a tape recorder to record her cries during the rape. 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. over 130). An autopsy revealed that, in addition to having been sexually violated, she had died of strangulation after receiving ), Thus, defendant must show that he used a peremptory challenge to remove the juror in question, that he exhausted his peremptory challenges (see Coleman, supra, 46 Cal.