People v. Cornwell

Summary

The California Supreme Court reviewed Glen Cornwell’s automatic appeal from convictions for first degree murder, robbery, unlawful firearm possession, and related firearm-use, prior-conviction, and special-circumstance findings, resulting in a death sentence. The opinion addresses, among other issues, a Batson/Wheeler challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of an African-American prospective juror and summarizes the guilt- and penalty-phase evidence. The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Holdings

1. The defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against Juror T. because of race; the challenge therefore did not violate Batson or Wheeler.
2. The trial court's inquiry into defense counsel's alleged conflict was sufficient, and the defendant failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance.
3. The trial court acted within its discretion in excluding proposed expert testimony concerning unconscious transference because its relevance was speculative and its admission risked confusing the jury.
4. The trial court properly excluded speculative testimony attempting to infer the prosecution witness's psychiatric condition from the medications he took.
5. The trial court acted within its broad discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing and a new trial based on alleged spectator misconduct.
6. Although the trial court erred by giving CALJIC No. 2.11.5 when an alleged accomplice testified, the error was harmless.
7. The prosecutor's comments about the defense's failure to explain why the defendant's vehicle was near the crime scene were permissible comments on the state of the evidence, not Griffin error.
8. The prosecutor's argument concerning discipline, freedom, and the rule of law did not improperly appeal to passion or prejudice.
9. Limiting cross-examination about the prosecution witness's possible fear of Three Strikes sentencing did not violate the confrontation right and, in any event, was harmless.
10. The trial court properly admitted evidence of the defendant's depleted finances and limited income because it was relevant to explain his sudden possession of cash after the robbery, rather than merely to show poverty as a motive for theft.
11. The identified instructional error, considered alone or cumulatively with any assumed evidentiary error, was harmless and did not require reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of an African-American prospective juror violated Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler.
2. Whether the trial court adequately investigated a potential conflict of interest arising from defense counsel's prior representation of the wife of a prosecution witness.
3. Whether exclusion of proposed expert testimony concerning unconscious transference violated the defendant's right to present a defense.
4. Whether limitation of expert testimony concerning the psychiatric significance of a prosecution witness's medications violated the defendant's right to present a defense.
5. Whether spectator conduct during trial deprived the defendant of a fair trial or required a new trial.
6. Whether the erroneous use of CALJIC No. 2.11.5 was prejudicial.
7. Whether the prosecutor committed Griffin error by commenting on the defense's failure to explain why the defendant's vehicle was near the crime scene.
8. Whether the prosecutor's argument concerning discipline, law and order, and freedom improperly appealed to passion or prejudice.
9. Whether limiting cross-examination concerning the witness's possible fear of Three Strikes sentencing violated the confrontation right.
10. Whether admission of evidence concerning the defendant's financial condition violated due process.
11. Whether cumulative error required reversal.
12. Whether the trial court improperly refused to consider the defendant's ineffective-assistance claim in connection with a motion for new trial.

Disposition

affirmed