People v. Westerfield

Summary

The California Supreme Court affirmed David Westerfield's death sentence for the 2002 first-degree murder and kidnapping of seven-year-old Danielle Van Dam, along with his conviction for misdemeanor child pornography. The court held that probable cause supported the issuance of five search warrants even without considering the defendant's failed polygraph examination, as the totality of other circumstances—including suspicious behavior, inconsistent statements, and FBI profiler insights—provided a substantial basis for the warrants. The court also found no error in the trial court's denial of a challenge for cause against a prospective juror who gave equivocal responses about impartiality, as the trial court's determination of the juror's state of mind was binding on review. The opinion addresses Fourth Amendment search and seizure, polygraph evidence in probable cause determinations, and juror bias standards in capital cases.

Holdings

1. Probable cause supported the issuance of the first search warrant even without consideration of the polygraph results, and therefore the subsequent warrants were also valid. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
2. The trial court did not err in denying the challenge for cause because the prospective juror's responses were equivocal and the court's determination of her ability to be fair and impartial is binding on appeal.
3. Defendant forfeited the claim by not raising pretrial publicity as a basis, and even on the merits, no error occurred because defendant failed to show he was likely to receive an unfair trial.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion; it took numerous precautions, repeatedly admonished the jury, and reasonably concluded that the jury was abiding by its orders.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to five search warrants, specifically whether the first warrant was supported by probable cause without considering the polygraph evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's challenge for cause to Prospective Juror number 19, and whether that forced him to use a peremptory challenge and later be tried by biased jurors.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for additional peremptory challenges due to pretrial publicity.
4. Whether the trial court erred in failing to sequester the jury given the extensive media attention.

Disposition

affirmed