People v. Thompson

Summary

The California Supreme Court affirmed James Alvin Thompson’s convictions for first degree murder and related special-circumstance findings, as well as his death sentence, arising from the shooting death of Ronald Gitmed. The opinion addresses, among other issues, the use of written juror questionnaires to excuse prospective jurors for cause, waiver, ineffective assistance of counsel, and evidentiary and credibility issues.

Holdings

1. A trial court may excuse a prospective capital-case juror for cause based solely on written questionnaire responses when those responses clearly leave no doubt that the juror is substantially impaired under Wainwright v. Witt and cannot set aside personal views to follow the law.
2. When a juror-cause ruling is based solely on the cold record of written questionnaire answers, appellate deference based on demeanor is unwarranted and the reviewing court independently reviews the record.
3. The trial court properly denied the Batson/Wheeler motion because the prosecutor offered race-neutral reasons for the challenged strikes and the trial court made a sincere and reasoned evaluation of those explanations supported by substantial evidence.
4. The warrantless search of the automobile and duffel bags was supported by probable cause under California v. Acevedo, and the suppression motion was properly denied.
5. Substantial evidence supported Thompson's first degree murder conviction under theories of premeditated and deliberate murder and felony murder, including direct-perpetrator and aiding-and-abetting theories.
6. The jury's not-true finding on the personal-firearm-use allegation did not establish that the jury relied exclusively on an aiding-and-abetting theory and did not require reversal of the murder conviction.
7. Substantial evidence supported the robbery-murder special circumstance, including the conclusion that Thompson was at least a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life if liability rested on aiding and abetting.
8. Mercurio's testimony was sufficiently corroborated under California Penal Code section 1111.
9. Mercurio's testimony was not inherently incredible because it described no physical impossibility and its alleged conflicts with other evidence required inference and credibility assessment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court constitutionally could excuse prospective jurors for cause based solely on written questionnaires without oral follow-up questioning.
2. Whether the trial court improperly excused prospective jurors for cause and applied unequal standards to jurors opposed to and favoring the death penalty.
3. Whether the prosecutor's peremptory challenges violated Batson and Wheeler.
4. Whether police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless automobile and container search and whether the defendant could challenge the search.
5. Whether substantial evidence supported first degree murder under direct-perpetrator and aiding-and-abetting theories.
6. Whether substantial evidence supported the robbery-murder special circumstance and the major-participant/reckless-indifference requirements.
7. Whether the split verdict on the personal-firearm-use allegation required reversal or established that the jury relied on an aiding-and-abetting theory.
8. Whether prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary errors, or ineffective assistance of counsel required reversal.
9. Whether accomplice testimony was adequately corroborated and whether Mercurio's testimony was inherently incredible.

Disposition

affirmed