People v. Cook

Summary

The California Supreme Court affirmed Joseph Lloyd Cook's convictions and death sentence for two first degree murders, burglary, and two robberies. The opinion addressed challenges concerning the excusal of a prospective juror opposed to the death penalty, admission of electrophoretic blood-testing evidence, and destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence. The court concluded that the trial court committed no reversible error.

Holdings

1. A capital prospective juror may be excused for cause when the juror's questionnaire responses, considered as a whole, show that the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair performance of the juror's duties, even if the juror also states that she could set aside her views and follow the law. Because defense counsel expressly agreed to submit the challenge on the questionnaire without further voir dire, the claim was also forfeited.
2. The electrophoretic testing of bloodstains on Cook's shoes was admissible under California's Kelly test. Once a scientific methodology is generally accepted, variations in technique ordinarily affect the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, absent a material scientific distinction or material failure to use accepted procedures.
3. The prosecution's failure to preserve the trash bag, electrophoretic gel plates, and original parolee photograph book did not violate due process and did not require sanctions because Cook failed to show that the evidence was materially exculpatory or that the prosecution acted in bad faith.
4. Under the federal Constitution, the right to counsel does not attach at a preindictment lineup before formal adversarial judicial proceedings have commenced, even when suspicion has focused on the defendant and the defendant has requested counsel.
5. The identification procedures used for the Wilcox witnesses were not shown to be impermissibly suggestive as a demonstrable reality, and the trial court properly admitted the identifications.
6. California's capital-sentencing statutes and instructions were not unconstitutional because they did not assign the prosecution a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden for aggravating factors or the penalty balance, require unanimity or written findings concerning aggravating factors, provide intercase proportionality review, or otherwise define aggravating and mitigating considerations with unconstitutional vagueness or overbreadth.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly excused a prospective capital juror based solely on her questionnaire responses without conducting additional voir dire.
2. Whether electrophoretic testing of bloodstains on Cook's shoes satisfied California's Kelly standard for admission of scientific evidence.
3. Whether the prosecution's failure to preserve a trash bag, electrophoretic gel plates, and a parolee photograph book violated due process or warranted sanctions or a jury instruction.
4. Whether pretrial and in-court eyewitness identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive or violated Cook's right to counsel.
5. Whether admission of Cook's letter to his landlord and testimony concerning a witness's prior consistent statement was erroneous.
6. Whether prosecutorial comments, jury exposure to newspaper articles, and jury instructions concerning reasonable doubt and motive required reversal.
7. Whether the penalty-phase rulings and California's death-penalty statutes and instructions violated constitutional requirements concerning mitigating evidence, burdens of proof, aggravating circumstances, proportionality, equal protection, vagueness, and international law.
8. Whether cumulative error required reversal of the judgment.

Disposition

affirmed