California Supreme Court Affirms Death Sentence for a 1995 Murder of a Deputy Sheriff
Paul Wallin
February 05, 2010
The California Supreme Court, on automatic appeal, has unanimously affirmed the verdict of death after the jury, in Sacramento County, convicted the defendant of the first degree murder of a deputy sheriff and of three counts of attempted premeditated murder of other peace officers stemmed from the same incident of domestic violence on March 2, 1995, in Ravendale, California. (People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745).
An array of legal issues was raised on appeal, and the Court has made a number of important findings. The Court has dismissed a claim that the defendant´s right to counsel was a violation when the jail personnel had entered defendant's cell, while the defendant was in court, and read all of his notes. The notes included materials sent to the defendant by his attorney. The trial court made a factual finding that the Sacramento County jail personnel had read the defendant's privileged legal materials. However, because the defendant did not offer any evidence that the confidential information had been communicated to the prosecution, the trial court determined that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
In evaluating this claim, the Supreme Court has first determined that not every intrusion into attorney-client privileged communication automatically establishes a prima facia violation of the Sixth Amendment. In fact, for the defendant to claim that his right to counsel was violated, there must be some showing that confidential communication was actually conveyed to the prosecution team.
The High Court has noticed that other courts are divided as to whether the defendant or the prosecution has the burden of establishing prejudice arising from a governmental intrusion on confidential attorney-client communication. However, there is no dispute as to the duty of the defense to establish, as part of its prima facie case, that confidential information was actually communicated to the prosecution. Because the defendant did not show that confidential information was in fact disclosed to the prosecution as a result of a jail search of the defendant´s cell, he could not claim his ,i>Sixth Amendment right was violated.
With regard to evidentiary issues, the Court has ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing out-of-court statement by the defendant´s wife, who had described to police officers the circumstances of her husband´s assault. At trial, as proof that the officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties within the meaning of the special circumstance allegation, and that the officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a felony assault on his wife, the prosecution put on the stand two officers who testified as to what they had been told by the dispatcher and by defendant's wife during her 911 call.
The Court has held that statements police officers relied upon to determine the existence of probable cause are admissible against a hearsay objection because they are not offered for its truth, but to show the officer´s state of mind at the time of arrest.
Among other evidentiary issues, the Court has determined that the trial court´s exclusion of defendant's handwritten statements prepared shortly after he had shot the officers, but before his arrest, was not erroneous. There was plenty of evidence to question his motives and sincerity in order to qualify his writing as a spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, or to show his state of mind.
With regard to the penalty phase, the court, among other things, has held that the victim impact testimony was not unduly prejudicial. There was no error in excluding expert testimony concerning the conditions of confinement in prison. There was no merit to the defendant's claim that the trial court's instruction precluded the jury from comparing the seriousness of his crime to other crimes of the same general character. Finally, the court´s exclusion of the word "mercy" from a jury instruction was not misleading.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, you should contact the experienced Southern California defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience handling the complexities involved in criminal cases. We will provide you with the best possible defense in your case. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-230-1529 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.
An array of legal issues was raised on appeal, and the Court has made a number of important findings. The Court has dismissed a claim that the defendant´s right to counsel was a violation when the jail personnel had entered defendant's cell, while the defendant was in court, and read all of his notes. The notes included materials sent to the defendant by his attorney. The trial court made a factual finding that the Sacramento County jail personnel had read the defendant's privileged legal materials. However, because the defendant did not offer any evidence that the confidential information had been communicated to the prosecution, the trial court determined that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
In evaluating this claim, the Supreme Court has first determined that not every intrusion into attorney-client privileged communication automatically establishes a prima facia violation of the Sixth Amendment. In fact, for the defendant to claim that his right to counsel was violated, there must be some showing that confidential communication was actually conveyed to the prosecution team.
The High Court has noticed that other courts are divided as to whether the defendant or the prosecution has the burden of establishing prejudice arising from a governmental intrusion on confidential attorney-client communication. However, there is no dispute as to the duty of the defense to establish, as part of its prima facie case, that confidential information was actually communicated to the prosecution. Because the defendant did not show that confidential information was in fact disclosed to the prosecution as a result of a jail search of the defendant´s cell, he could not claim his ,i>Sixth Amendment right was violated.
With regard to evidentiary issues, the Court has ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing out-of-court statement by the defendant´s wife, who had described to police officers the circumstances of her husband´s assault. At trial, as proof that the officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties within the meaning of the special circumstance allegation, and that the officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a felony assault on his wife, the prosecution put on the stand two officers who testified as to what they had been told by the dispatcher and by defendant's wife during her 911 call.
The Court has held that statements police officers relied upon to determine the existence of probable cause are admissible against a hearsay objection because they are not offered for its truth, but to show the officer´s state of mind at the time of arrest.
Among other evidentiary issues, the Court has determined that the trial court´s exclusion of defendant's handwritten statements prepared shortly after he had shot the officers, but before his arrest, was not erroneous. There was plenty of evidence to question his motives and sincerity in order to qualify his writing as a spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, or to show his state of mind.
With regard to the penalty phase, the court, among other things, has held that the victim impact testimony was not unduly prejudicial. There was no error in excluding expert testimony concerning the conditions of confinement in prison. There was no merit to the defendant's claim that the trial court's instruction precluded the jury from comparing the seriousness of his crime to other crimes of the same general character. Finally, the court´s exclusion of the word "mercy" from a jury instruction was not misleading.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, you should contact the experienced Southern California defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience handling the complexities involved in criminal cases. We will provide you with the best possible defense in your case. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-230-1529 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.
Print
Email
