Summary
The California Supreme Court reviewed Cleophus Prince Jr.'s automatic appeal from a judgment imposing the death penalty after convictions for six first degree murders and numerous related offenses. The opinion describes the prosecution's evidence concerning the murders, burglaries, attempted burglaries, rape, and perjury, including eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, physical evidence, and alleged admissions. The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether pervasive pretrial publicity required a change of venue under California law or the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and an impartial jury.
- Whether the trial court properly admitted expert testimony that common modus operandi and signature characteristics indicated that the six murders were committed by the same person.
- Whether the defense was entitled to discovery of the FBI VICAP database allegedly relevant to the expert's linkage opinion.
- Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence of death should be affirmed on automatic appeal.
Holdings
- The superior court properly denied the motion for change of venue. Extensive publicity, without more, did not establish a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial could not be held in San Diego County, and the record did not show actual or presumed juror prejudice.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an FBI agent's expert testimony that common modus operandi and distinctive crime-scene characteristics indicated that the six murders were committed by the same person, while excluding testimony concerning the perpetrator's probable state of mind, motive, or intent.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery of the FBI VICAP database because the expert testified that his opinion was based on personal experience rather than the database, and the defense could cross-examine him regarding his qualifications, experience, and the similarities and differences among the charged crimes.
Key quotations
“Of course an expert's opinion that a defendant is guilty is both unhelpful to the jury—which is equally equipped to reach that conclusion—and too helpful, in that the testimony may give the jury the impression that the issue has been decided and need not be the subject of deliberation.” (at 584-585)
“Ankrom's conclusion, based upon special training and experience in evaluating the records of hundreds of crime scenes, that he believed all the crimes were committed by the same person, did not bind the jury, nor would Ankrom's testimony be understood as essentially directing a verdict.” (at 585)
Factual background
Prince was convicted of six murders and numerous related burglaries, attempted burglaries, rape, and perjury arising from crimes committed in the San Diego area between 1990 and 1991. The prosecution presented eyewitness, forensic, DNA, possession-of-stolen-property, and incriminating-statement evidence connecting him to the offenses. The defense challenged the identifications, forensic inferences, accomplice and jailhouse-informant testimony, and the prosecution's expert testimony linking the murders through common crime-scene characteristics.
Procedural history
A San Diego County Superior Court jury convicted Prince of the charged offenses, found two special-circumstance allegations and knife-use allegations true, and fixed the punishment at death. The superior court imposed a judgment of death and sentences for the noncapital convictions. The appeal was automatic under California Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b).