The Court Held That the Trial Court's Excusal of a Prospective for Cause Was Prope
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) of two counts of firstdegree murder. The jury returned true findings on the special circumstances of multiple murder and murder in the commission of burglary and robbery, and it also found that defendant personally used a firearm in both murders and that his codefendant was armed with a firearm. Defendant received the death penalty. Appeal was automatic. The court held that the trial court's excusal of a prospective for cause was proper because there was sufficient evidence attorney ADA that the juror would have been substantially impaired in the performance of his duties as a penalty phase juror. The denial of defendant's motion to suppress the admission he made to correctional officers at his prison intake interview was also proper. The officers' questioning was part of a routine, noninvestigative prison process, well within the scope of the booking exception to the Miranda rule. Their questions were not designed to elicit an incriminating response. Rather, they were appropriately responding to defendant's own security concern. The prosecution's questioning of a codefendant regarding his plea agreement was not improperly leading or argumentative, and did not amount to vouching. The trial court properly refused defendant's proposed penalty phase instruction on victim impact evidence because it incorrectly stated the law. Defendant was given ample opportunity to invite the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence, and nothing in the prosecutor's arguments detracted from that opportunity or kept the jury from considering all the evidence.