People v. Howard

Summary

The Supreme Court of California affirmed Alphonso Howard’s convictions and death sentence for the murder, rape, and forcible lewd act upon an 11-year-old child. The opinion addresses challenges concerning notice of aggravating evidence and alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges under Wheeler and Batson, along with the evidence supporting the convictions and penalty.

Holdings

1. A defendant who fails to object to the adequacy of timely notice of penalty-phase aggravating evidence forfeits the claim on appeal, and notice provided more than a month before the penalty trial afforded sufficient time to prepare a defense.
2. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were motivated by discriminatory purpose; the trial court therefore properly denied the Wheeler/Batson motions.
3. The trial court properly gave the flight instruction because the jury could reasonably infer that Howard's departure after discovery of the body reflected consciousness of guilt; the instruction was neither impermissibly argumentative nor unconstitutional.
4. Any failure to give accomplice-testimony instructions concerning Kimbell was harmless because Kimbell's testimony did not establish Howard's guilt and the independent evidence against Howard was overwhelming.
5. Admission of the larger autopsy photograph was within the trial court's discretion because its probative value concerning the disputed extent of the victim's injuries was not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice.
6. The penalty-phase instructions adequately conveyed the reasonable-doubt burden for prior criminal activity, and the failure to redefine reasonable doubt was harmless. The instruction concerning possession of a deadly weapon in jail was also constitutionally adequate.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or coerce the penalty-phase jury by retaining the foreperson, excusing another juror, continuing deliberations, and asking about numerical vote divisions.
8. California's death-penalty statute was constitutional as applied, and Howard's death sentence was not intracase disproportionate or otherwise constitutionally infirm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether notice of aggravating evidence involving jailhouse criminal activity was legally inadequate or constitutionally prejudicial.
2. Whether the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of Wheeler and Batson.
3. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on flight, accomplice testimony, motive, consciousness of guilt, alternative murder theories, lesser included offenses, and reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated due process by admitting a larger autopsy photograph.
5. Whether the penalty-phase instructions concerning prior criminal activity and possession of a deadly weapon were constitutionally deficient.
6. Whether the trial court coerced the penalty-phase jury by continuing deliberations, retaining the foreperson, and inquiring into numerical vote divisions.
7. Whether California's death-penalty statute was unconstitutional under the federal and state Constitutions.
8. Whether the death sentence was intracase disproportionate or cumulatively prejudiced by trial error.

Disposition

affirmed