Summary
The California Supreme Court reviewed Robert Edward Maury's convictions for three first degree murders, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, and forcible rape, along with a death sentence and special-circumstance findings. The court addressed the prosecution's circumstantial evidence concerning the crimes and the Secret Witness calls and affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in granting or denying challenges for cause during capital-jury selection.
- Whether the defendant preserved his challenge to the denial of defense challenges for cause.
- Whether evidence obtained through the Secret Witness program, including monitored calls and surveillance photographs, violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the defendant's Secret Witness statements were involuntary because they were induced by promises of anonymity and rewards.
- Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to renew a change-of-venue motion after jury voir dire.
- Whether the charges should have been severed and whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to sever or give limiting instructions.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Stark murder and assault convictions, the Berryhill murder and robbery convictions, the robbery-murder special circumstance, and the rape conviction.
Holdings
- A prospective capital juror may be excused for cause when the juror's views on the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair performance of the juror's duties, and the trial court's resolution of equivocal or conflicting statements is entitled to deference when supported by substantial evidence.
- A defendant preserves a claim based on denial of a challenge for cause only by using an available peremptory challenge to remove the juror, exhausting or justifying failure to exhaust peremptory challenges, and expressing dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected.
- The monitoring of defendant's voluntarily initiated calls to the Secret Witness program and the public surveillance and photographing of defendant at the reward pickup did not violate the Fourth Amendment because defendant had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications or exposed whereabouts.
- The defendant's statements to the Secret Witness program were voluntary; generalized offers of rewards and anonymity were not coercive state activity, particularly where the defendant initiated the negotiations and selected the terms of the exchange.
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to renew the change-of-venue motion after voir dire because the record supported a reasonable tactical decision that renewal would be futile, and the defendant failed to establish prejudice.
- The charged murders, assault, and rape were properly joined, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance or by failing sua sponte to sever the charges or give a limiting instruction concerning cross-admissible evidence.
- Substantial evidence supported the convictions for the Stark murder and assault with intent to commit rape, the Berryhill murder and robbery, the robbery-murder special circumstance, and the forcible rape of Jacqueline H.
Key quotations
“The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.”” (at 600)
“Coercive activity by the state is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession or admission is not voluntary.” (at 603)
“Because evidence of the murders and rape was cross-admissible, no abuse of discretion occurred in failing to sever.” (at 609)
Factual background
Maury was convicted of murdering Averill Weeden, Belinda Jo Stark, and Dawn Berryhill, assaulting Stark with intent to commit rape, robbing Berryhill, and forcibly raping Jacqueline H. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including Maury's repeated calls to the Shasta County Secret Witness program seeking rewards for information leading to the discovery of the victims' bodies, his identification as the caller, statements to police and others, and similarities among the crimes. The jury also found multiple-murder and robbery-murder special circumstances true and returned a death verdict.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Maury of three first degree murders and related assault, robbery, and rape offenses and returned a death verdict after the penalty phase. The trial court imposed the death sentence. The appeal was automatic under California Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b). The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment in its entirety.