Title: People v. Simon

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1 
Filed 7/18/16 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S102166 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
 
RICHARD NATHAN SIMON, 
) 
 
) 
Riverside County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. CR-68928 
 
____________________________________) 
In November 1999, a Riverside County jury found defendant Richard 
Nathan Simon guilty of the first degree murders of Vincent Anes and Sherry 
Magpali (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), the second degree murder of Michael 
Sterling with the personal use of a firearm (ibid.), the rape of Magpali (§ 261, 
subd. (a)(2)), and the kidnapping of Magpali (§ 207, subd. (a)).  The jury further 
found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. 
(a)(3)), that Simon committed Anes‘s murder while engaged in the commission of 
a robbery (former § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i), now § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), and 
that Simon committed Magpali‘s murder while engaged in the commission of a 
robbery, kidnapping, and rape (id., subd. (a)(17)(i)-(iii), now subd. (a)(17)(A)-
(C)). 
                                              
1 
Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal 
Code. 
2 
The jury was unable to reach a decision at the first penalty trial, so the court 
declared a mistrial.  The court then empaneled a new jury, which fixed the penalty 
as death after a second penalty trial.2  The trial court automatically reviewed the 
verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), declined to modify it, and sentenced Simon to death.  
This appeal is automatic.  (§ 1239, subd. (b).)  For the reasons that follow, 
we affirm the judgment in its entirety. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
A.  Guilt Phase 
1.  Prosecution Evidence 
a.  The Killings of Vincent Anes and Sherry Magpali 
On the evening of December 2, 1995, Vincent Anes drove his girlfriend 
Sherry Magpali and their friends Jose and Eugene Menor to a party in Moreno 
Valley.  About two hours later, the four left the party, went bowling, and visited 
nearby Taco Bell and Claim Jumper restaurants.  Not long after midnight, Anes 
dropped Magpali off near her house and drove the Menor brothers home.  Jose 
then observed Anes make a U-turn and travel back toward Magpali‘s residence.  
Around 1:00 a.m., Kenneth Riomales, Jason and John Marianas, and Noah 
Maling drove by Pedrorena Park and saw Anes‘s car in the parking lot.  Assuming 
Anes was with Magpali, they did not stop.  No more than half an hour later, the 
group returned, checked on the car, and saw a bullet-ridden naked body in the rear 
seat.  Although the body‘s face was covered, they suspected it was Anes.  Without 
immediately calling 911, the group drove to Anes‘s nearby house and asked 
Anes‘s mother if her son was home.  When Anes‘s mother confirmed that he was 
                                              
2 
Unless otherwise noted, the ―penalty phase‖ refers to this second penalty 
trial. 
3 
not, Riomales called 911 and the group returned to Pedrorena Park with Anes‘s 
mother, brother, and grandfather.  Officers met the group within minutes and 
confirmed that Anes was deceased. 
The investigating officers observed that Anes‘s body was missing a ring 
and necklace that he had been wearing earlier that evening.  Also missing was a 
large speaker from the car‘s trunk.  From the vehicle, investigators collected eight 
9-millimeter shell casings and three 9-millimeter projectiles.  They also found a 
jacket holding some of Magpali‘s possessions, including a camera with 
photographs of the couple from that evening‘s party. 
Nearby, officers found Anes‘s underwear and T-shirt on a basketball court.  
The underwear had been cut along the edges of the waist and legs, and the crotch 
had been cut or ripped out.  Officers also found torn pieces of Magpali‘s 
undergarments as well as Anes‘s pants, belt, and sock on the roof of a restroom.  
Magpali‘s bra was on the ground near that restroom.  Officers recovered 29 latent 
fingerprints from the vehicle and six from the restroom door, but none matched 
any prints within the automated statewide fingerprint identification system. 
Later that morning, officers found Magpali‘s body several miles away on 
the side of Interstate 215 in Sun City, clothed only in jeans and a blouse.  Rings 
and a necklace she had been wearing that night were missing.  Investigators noted 
blood under her head, and bloodstains on her right hand and jeans.  They 
recovered two 9-millimeter shell casings near Magpali‘s body and two 9-
millimeter projectiles in the dirt beneath her head.  Investigators also applied ―tape 
lifts‖ to collect trace evidence that may have adhered to Magpali‘s body and 
clothing.  
Evidence from the victims‘ bodies was later collected at the coroner‘s 
office.  Plant material was collected from Anes‘s penis and thigh, but there was no 
indication of sexual assault.  Anes‘s autopsy revealed eight gunshot wounds, all 
4 
received within a span of seconds to a minute or two, and from a gun fired 
between three and 18 inches away.  In total, five 9-millimeter projectiles were 
removed from Anes‘s body.  The other three had been found in the vehicle.  
Magpali‘s autopsy revealed two gunshot wounds to the head, with holes consistent 
with a medium caliber weapon fired from at least 18 to 24 inches away.  
Inconclusive evidence indicated that a third projectile may have grazed Magpali‘s 
face.  Toxicology screenings of Anes and Magpali came back negative for alcohol 
and drugs. 
Trace evidence collected from Magpali‘s body included fibers, fingernail 
clippings, swabs from her hands and vagina, and brushings from the hair on her 
head and pubic region.  Brushings from her pubic hair, as well as the vaginal 
swab, revealed the presence of sperm.  Her jeans and shirt showed possible semen 
stains, in addition to plant material and bloodstains.  And although no signs of 
vaginal trauma were detected, Magpali‘s legs had fingertip bruising and scratches 
consistent with being held forcefully.  When police later obtained a DNA profile 
from Simon‘s blood sample, it matched the DNA profile exhibited in the sperm 
fraction present on the vaginal swab taken from Magpali‘s body and in the stains 
from the crotch area of her jeans.  Simon was the only possible source of the DNA 
samples obtained from those sperm fractions. 
Other trace evidence on Magpali‘s body included red fibers on her jeans 
and on the back of her right leg.  These fibers were later determined to be 
consistent with carpet fibers from a 1981 Dodge Colt, which was owned at the 
time by Curtis Williams,3 an associate of Simon‘s.  Upon further inspection, this 
                                              
3 
Williams was arrested in connection with the murders of Anes and Magpali 
on October 6, 1999.  He was tried and convicted in separate proceedings and is not 
involved in this appeal. 
5 
vehicle contained two bullet-sized holes, one at the front edge of the glove box 
and one behind it, which tested ―weakly positive‖ for lead.  While possible that 
one bullet created both holes, no projectile was found in Williams‘s car. 
Preliminary examination of the recovered projectiles and shell casings from 
both crime scenes showed that all projectiles were probably fired from the same 
gun.  The cartridge casings, in particular, exhibited a distinctive impression left by 
the gun‘s firing pin, which was entered into the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s 
Drugfire system. 
On January 18, 1996 — less than seven weeks after the bodies of Anes and 
Magpali had been discovered — Simon was pulled over for a traffic stop with two 
passengers in the car.  All occupants were arrested, the car was impounded, and an 
inventory search revealed a nine-millimeter handgun containing 17 rounds under 
the front passenger‘s seat.  Mamie Meeks — Simon‘s front seat passenger — 
testified that earlier that day Simon had driven to a nearby home to pick up a gun 
he had said he needed for protection from ―some of the gang bangers or something 
in San Bernardino he didn‘t get along with.‖  Meeks explained that upon being 
pulled over, Simon gave the gun to Meeks and told her to put it under the seat.  
Simon called Meeks from jail the next day, asking her to claim ownership of the 
weapon.  When she refused, Simon became angry and told Meeks that he was 
going to ―fuck her up.‖  This threat prompted Meeks‘s relocation to Nevada for 
several months.  Simon was eventually released from custody. 
On May 7, 1996, cartridge casings from the gun found in Simon‘s 
possession were test fired.  They matched the impression previously entered into 
the Drugfire system.  Further examination revealed that all 10 cartridge casings 
recovered from the Anes and Magpali crime scenes had been fired from that gun. 
6 
b.  The Killing of Michael Sterling 
The night of May 25, 1996, officers responding to a call arrived at an 
apartment complex in Moreno Valley.  The officers found Vernice Haynes in a 
field across from the complex‘s parking lot, kneeling next to Michael Sterling, 
who had been shot.  Sterling was conscious at the time, but he died of a single 
gunshot wound to the chest shortly after paramedics transported him to Riverside 
Hospital. 
Haynes — Sterling‘s then-fiancée — testified that on the night of the 
incident, she and Sterling had been visiting an apartment where Davinna Gentry, 
Sterling‘s cousin, lived with Williams, Gentry‘s boyfriend.  Around 8:00 p.m., 
Simon, joined by Jamal and Raheen Brown, knocked on the door.  When Gentry 
opened it, Simon asked if ―Droopy‖ (i.e., Williams) was home.  Gentry turned to 
look at Williams, stepping away from the door, at which point Simon entered and 
shook Williams‘s hand. 
Williams introduced Simon to Sterling, the two shook hands, and Simon 
asked Sterling where he was from.  After Sterling identified himself as a member 
of the Inland Empire (IE) gang, Simon — who claimed membership in a rival 
gang — became angry, cursing at Sterling.  Sterling stood up and lifted his shirt, 
showing that he was unarmed, and told Simon that he had just been released from 
prison and was ―trying to be cool.‖  According to both Gentry and Haynes, Simon 
then told Jamal and Raheen to go get his gun, but they refused.  At trial, Jamal 
denied that Simon had made this request.  
Williams attempted to usher Simon outside to talk.  Simon responded by 
swinging his fist at Williams and asking why he was hanging out with ―IE.‖  
Gentry asked Simon to leave, as she did not want fighting in her home.  Around 
this time, Simon asked Williams if he could use the bathroom, and during his 
absence Gentry told Williams to get Simon out of the house. 
7 
Testimony conflicted on the events that followed.  Gentry testified that after 
Simon used the bathroom, he appeared to have calmed down, apologized to 
Sterling and Williams, shook Sterling‘s hand, hugged Sterling, and left the 
apartment with Williams in tow.  According to Haynes, Simon cooled down, 
apologized, and hugged Sterling before going to the bathroom.  Haynes testified 
further that during Simon‘s absence, she told Sterling that she wanted to leave 
because she was afraid Simon was going to shoot them.  But Sterling, worried 
what might happen to Williams, preferred to stay.  Haynes also said that when 
Simon exited the bathroom, he apologized again to Sterling, but struck Williams in 
the face with his elbow and yelled at Williams for having Sterling in the house.  At 
some point, though, Simon exited the house, and Williams followed.  
Testimony again conflicted on the events that transpired after Simon and 
Williams went outside.  According to Haynes, she and Gentry urged Sterling to 
stay inside, but he insisted on leaving to check on Williams.  Haynes testified that 
she asked Gentry if there was a back door so that she could go get Sterling‘s 
brothers, but Gentry told her not to leave the house.  And as she and Gentry were 
arguing, Haynes said she heard three shots.4  Haynes then testified that Williams 
returned within moments; he appeared to have been in a fight.  She ran outside, 
observed Simon and one of his friends running toward Simon‘s car, saw Sterling 
staggering in the field across the street, and ran toward Sterling.  Sterling fell to 
the ground and told Haynes that he would be going back to jail. 
When interviewed by police, Gentry‘s version of the events was consistent 
with Haynes‘s testimony in that Gentry said she was inside the apartment when 
she heard gunfire.  At trial, however, Gentry claimed that the transcript of her 
                                              
4 
After the incident, Haynes told officers she had heard four shots.  
8 
taped interview with police was incorrect.  Gentry testified instead that after 
Sterling exited the house, Haynes became upset and ran into the bathroom.  Gentry 
claimed she then ran out the back door and looked over the gate to see what was 
happening.  Gentry said that she could only see shadows, but could tell that 
Sterling was leaning on Simon‘s car, and heard Simon tell Sterling to get off the 
vehicle.  When Sterling stood up, she heard two shots together, and a third three to 
four minutes later. 
Jamal Brown also testified at trial, acknowledging that he and his brother 
Raheen accompanied Simon to Gentry‘s apartment that evening.  Jamal recalled 
arguments both inside and outside of the apartment, but he testified that Simon 
never told him to go get a gun.  Jamal testified further that he did not remember 
how many shots were fired and was not paying attention to what was going on 
immediately before the shooting.  When an officer interviewed Jamal on May 31, 
1996, however, Jamal said he had heard two shots.  During that interview, Jamal 
also said that Simon had shown him a gun the day of the incident.  And although 
Jamal claimed not to have witnessed the events immediately preceding the 
shooting, he told the officer that Simon ―totally shot [Sterling] cold blooded.‖   
When they arrived at the scene, officers found a spent shell casing under a 
stairway across from where Sterling fell.  Sterling‘s autopsy showed that he was 
killed by a single gunshot wound to the torso from a .22-caliber bullet traveling 
slightly downward, slightly forward, and from about two feet away.  Sterling‘s 
toxicology screening was positive for marijuana and showed a blood-alcohol 
content of 0.10 percent at the time of death. 
On May 26, 1996, officers arrested Simon and searched his home.  The 
search was conducted in accordance with a condition of Simon‘s probation for a 
1993 attempted robbery conviction.  The condition required that Simon ―[s]ubmit 
[his] person and property under [his] control to search or seizure at any time of the 
9 
day or night . . . with or without a warrant, or probable cause.‖  During the search, 
officers found a .22-caliber handgun under Simon‘s mattress, a box of CCI brand 
ammunition, and a clip loaded with several brands of bullets.  Investigators later 
determined that the shell casing recovered from the Sterling crime scene was fired 
by this gun, and the projectile from Sterling‘s body could have been fired by this 
gun. 
2.  Defense Evidence 
The defense theory of the Anes/Magpali murders was that Williams alone 
was responsible for killing the two teens.  In support of this theory, the defense 
presented evidence that Williams would have had access to the murder weapon 
during the relevant time period.  Defense witnesses testified that on January 18, 
1996, when Simon was stopped for the traffic violation, he had gone with Meeks 
to a residence on Fay Avenue to pick up the gun.  Witnesses testified further that 
Williams regularly visited a friend at that house. 
As to the Sterling homicide, the defense argued that the offense amounted 
to less than first degree murder based in part on character evidence suggesting 
Sterling had a propensity for violence.  Haynes, Sterling‘s fiancée at the time, 
testified that Sterling had been in prison for assaulting another man, and that he 
had been in jail on other occasions. 
B.  Penalty Phase 
At the penalty phase, the prosecution relied on the circumstances of the 
crimes and Simon‘s previous misconduct as evidence in aggravation supporting 
imposition of the death penalty.  The prosecution presented testimony relating to 
the circumstances of the convicted offenses, as well as victim impact evidence on 
behalf of Magpali, Anes, and Sterling.  As to previous misconduct, the prosecution 
introduced evidence that jail personnel had found shanks in Simon‘s cell on two 
10 
occasions.  The prosecution also introduced evidence of a letter, purportedly 
written by Simon while in jail, to his cousin Terri Richardson.  The letter, which 
referenced committing possible acts of violence against other inmates, was 
admitted to show Simon‘s motive or intent for possessing a shank on the first 
occasion.  The letter stated, for example, ―I‘ll hurt one of these fools . . . .  I‘m 
tired of these punk ass fools in here . . . .‖  It continued, ―I‘m not going to take this 
shit too much longer. . . .  I‘m going to lay one of they ass out.  I‘ll beat the shit 
out of one of these fools.‖  The letter was signed, ―Still you cuz, Nate.‖ 
The defense presented evidence in mitigation.  In making the case for 
mitigation, the defense focused on Simon‘s psychological background, including 
testimony from relatives about Simon‘s childhood and expert testimony discussing 
organic brain damage.  Simon‘s mother, who eventually became a police officer, 
testified that she had been in several abusive relationships during Simon‘s 
formative years.  One of those relationships was with her patrol sergeant, who 
became physically abusive toward both her and Simon.  On one occasion, this man 
punched Simon for teasing the man‘s youngest son.  On another, the man tied 
Simon‘s hand to a door with a belt and beat him severely.  When Simon was in his 
late teens, he was knocked unconscious during a fight at a park in Compton.  
About a year later, Simon moved from California to Michigan to live with 
relatives.  While there, he suffered a gunshot wound to the head, causing him to 
lose sight in his left eye.  After being hospitalized for his injuries, Simon returned 
to California.  His cousin Richardson testified that Simon seemed different when 
he came back from Michigan.  But Simon was supportive of Richardson during 
her pregnancy.  Another of Simon‘s female relatives, his half sister, testified that 
she considered Simon a positive role model who had discouraged her from 
engaging in criminal behavior. 
11 
The defense also offered testimony from two medical experts.  The first, 
Dr. David Fukuda, treated Simon during the time he was incarcerated pending 
trial.  Dr. Fukuda prescribed medication to control Simon‘s seizures and ordered 
skull X-rays and a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan, which revealed 
bullet fragments lodged in Simon‘s right nasal bone and left eye socket.  The CAT 
scan also revealed encephalomalacia of the right frontal lobe with deformity of the 
overlying cranium consistent with Simon‘s previous surgery to treat the gunshot 
wound he sustained in this area.  The second expert, neurologist Dr. Kenneth 
Nudleman, examined Simon prior to trial.  Dr. Nudleman reviewed Simon‘s 
medical records and ordered additional neurological testing.  From these sources, 
Dr. Nudleman concluded that Simon suffered from significant organic brain 
damage primarily to the right frontal lobe and, to a lesser extent, the left frontal 
lobe.  He found roughly 20-25 percent of Simon‘s right frontal lobe was missing.  
This part of the brain, Dr. Nudleman explained, is involved with impulse function 
and anger control. 
During rebuttal, the prosecution introduced an undated and unaddressed 
letter that had been enclosed in the Richardson letter and was purportedly directed 
toward Simon‘s wife, Keisia.  The letter, introduced to rebut evidence of Simon‘s 
good character, contained threatening and explicit language.  It read, for instance:  
―If I can‘t get you, I‘m getting the closest thing to you, bitch. . . .  [¶]  I‘m going to 
get you, bitch. . . .  I‘m the one to be scared of. . . .  [¶]  I‘m already a dead man 
walking, . . . so can‘t shit you say or do hurt me.  But I can do a whole lot to hurt 
you. . . .  [¶]  You are now considered road kill, bitch, and if you run from it, your 
best friend takes your place.‖  The letter was signed, ―Until doomsday, yours that 
is; [¶] Nate, (rides again).‖ 
12 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Issue Affecting Both Phases 
1.  Stun Belt 
Simon claims the trial court erred by requiring him to wear a remote-
controlled stun belt as a security measure during the guilt and penalty phases.5  
We disagree. 
a.  Background 
On September 13, 1999, the first day of jury selection, defense counsel 
requested that ―no chains, shackles, cuffs [or] anything of that sort be worn by the 
defendant during the course of the trial.‖  Defense counsel stated that he had been 
told Simon was wearing a Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology 
(REACT) stun belt that day, an arrangement defense counsel opposed unless the 
court could provide adequate justification.  Defense counsel also complained that 
the belt was placed in such a manner — near Simon‘s left hip — that some jurors 
might be able to notice it. 
The trial court granted the motion that Simon be unshackled.  But the court, 
relying on a series of incidents described by the bailiff, denied Simon‘s request to 
have the stun belt removed.  At the court‘s behest, the bailiff detailed the 
following incidents on the record:  in June 1996, Simon had a fight with another 
inmate; less than a year later, in April 1997, jail personnel found a shank in 
Simon‘s cell; in July 1998, Simon refused to obey a deputy‘s order, and jail 
personnel found excess food in his cell; in September 1998, Simon refused to 
return to his cell during a lockdown, and jail personnel found two plastic shanks in 
                                              
5 
A stun belt is a device worn around the waist that delivers an incapacitating 
electric shock when activated by a court security officer.  (See People v. Mar 
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1204 (Mar).) 
13 
Simon‘s cell; in August 1999, jail personnel found feces stored in a container in 
Simon‘s cell, along with cleaning products; and that same month, Simon 
threatened a new deputy.  
In denying Simon‘s motion, the trial court expressed particular concern 
about the shanks and incidents of fighting.  The court also noted that it had 
inquired into why the feces and cleaning supplies were significant and learned 
from the bailiff, as well as from another deputy who was present during their 
discussion, that these items are commonly used in making explosives.  
Defense counsel next indicated that Simon was uncomfortable because the 
position of the stun belt prevented him from leaning back in his chair.  Defense 
counsel also requested that the belt be placed on Simon‘s right side to make it 
more difficult for the jury to notice its presence.  The trial court asked whether the 
belt could be worn on either side, to which the bailiff responded that the belt could 
only be placed on the left side.  The court then asked if the inability to lean back is 
a typical problem with the belt, and the bailiff explained that an extra cushion 
positioned on the right side usually solved this problem. 
Defense counsel interjected to raise another concern:  Simon had a prior 
injury to his left hip area that was causing him discomfort.  The cushion, defense 
counsel explained, did not improve Simon‘s ability to lean back, and he was 
worried Simon would appear uncomfortable in front of the jury.  Defense counsel 
also argued that Simon should not have to wear the stun belt at all because there 
had been no indication that Simon was a flight risk, and because searching him 
prior to his entering the courtroom would alleviate any concerns about his bringing 
in weapons. 
The trial court declined to change its positon.  The court explained that its 
primary concern was not necessarily that Simon would bring a shank into the 
courtroom or attempt to escape.  Rather, the concern was that the shanks, fights, 
14 
and bomb-making materials indicated to the court that Simon was a danger to 
others.  The court noted further:  ―When we bring 75 good citizens into the 
courtroom, I think we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are 
protected, as well as our own staff and counsel.  And I think that . . . some kind of 
restraint is appropriate.‖  The court also prepared a minute order, dated September 
13, 1999, which read:  ―Oral Motion By DEFENSE regarding NO RESTRAINTS 
ON DEFT DURING TRIAL is called for hearing.  [¶]  Motion Granted.  [¶]  
Defendant to remain unshackled during trial.  [¶]  Motion denied as to React Belt.  
Defendant to wear React Belt during trial.‖ 
Simon renewed his objection to wearing the stun belt on July 16, 2001, at 
the start of the penalty phase.  Defense counsel noted the absence of any incidents 
during the three and a half month trial of the guilt phase, and during the year and a 
half since a mistrial had been declared at the first penalty trial.  Defense counsel 
acknowledged that the stun belt was ―less obtrusive and noticeable than shackles 
or something of that sort,‖ but he added that the stun belt was still a ―fairly 
obtrusive item‖ and could be seen if Simon were not wearing a jacket.  
The trial court solicited information from a sheriff‘s deputy, who reminded 
the court of incidents with the shanks and the fight involving another inmate.  The 
deputy also mentioned that Simon had claimed to be a member of the Crips gang 
and had been verbally aggressive toward deputies on several occasions since 1998 
and as late as 2001.  The deputy noted further that Simon had written a letter in 
1997 containing racial slurs and mentioning a possible attempt to assault a 
Hispanic inmate.  Finally, the deputy opined that because Simon had already been 
convicted, he had nothing to lose.  Simon was therefore considered ―a very high 
security risk‖ who was being housed accordingly. 
Defense counsel argued that neither the charges brought against Simon nor 
the nature of his crimes could alone justify requiring him to wear the stun belt.  
15 
Further, defense counsel objected to the vagueness of the deputy‘s references to 
Simon‘s alleged verbal aggression toward his jailers.  He questioned the reliability 
of the information and noted that the deputy was not under oath.  The deputy 
interjected at that point, explaining that an incident had happened that morning. 
The trial court then asked for input from the prosecutor, who argued that 
Simon had exhibited violent tendencies by taking the time to manufacture 
weapons in his cell, and that the court should ensure the safety of the courtroom by 
requiring Simon to wear the stun belt.  The prosecutor also noted the possibility of 
using another type of stun belt that is worn on the leg rather than the waist.  A 
deputy explained that this device is called a Band-It, but it was being used at 
another facility so it was not available that day.  The deputies would need two 
days‘ lead time in order to obtain it.  
After reflecting on the views expressed by counsel and the relevant 
information, the trial court ruled that Simon should continue to wear the stun belt 
for the penalty phase.  The court agreed with defense counsel that verbal 
aggressiveness, the threats in the letter, and the nature of the charges and possible 
punishment did not warrant use of the stun belt.  The court also agreed that Simon 
was unlikely to bring a weapon to court.  Nonetheless, Simon‘s previous 
possession of shanks demonstrated a potential willingness to commit violence.  
Observing that only one or two armed deputies would be present, the court 
reiterated its concern for the safety of the more than 90 people that would be in the 
courtroom.  The court also stated it would ―certainly direct the deputies at this 
time to put [the stun belt] on in such a way that it is as unobtrusive as possible.‖  
In this vein, the court asked again whether the belt could be put on Simon‘s right 
side.  Although the deputies had previously told the court this was not possible, 
they now informed the court that the belt could in fact be placed on Simon‘s right 
side for the penalty phase.  The court also asked the deputies to look into the 
16 
possibility of obtaining the Band-It, but defense counsel did not press the matter 
further. 
b.  Legal Standard 
A trial court has broad power to maintain courtroom security and orderly 
proceedings, and its decisions on these matters are reviewed for abuse of 
discretion.  (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 389 
(Bryant, Smith and Wheeler).)  That discretion, however, must yield to principles 
of due process.  (Ibid.)  To that end, we have held that physical restraints of any 
kind are inappropriate in the courtroom while the jury is present, unless there is a 
manifest need for such restraints.  (People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-
291 (Duran).)  This ―manifest need‖ standard applies equally to use of a stun belt.  
(Mar, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 1218-1220.)  In determining whether there is a 
manifest need to restrain the defendant, courts consider several factors, including 
evidence that the defendant poses a safety or flight risk or is likely to disrupt the 
proceedings.  (Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, at p. 389.)  The use of physical 
restraints in the absence of a record showing of violence, a threat of violence, or 
other nonconforming conduct is an abuse of discretion.  (Duran, at p. 291.) 
No formal hearing is required.  But when the use of restraints is based on 
conduct of the defendant that occurred outside the presence of the trial court, 
sufficient evidence of such conduct must be presented on the record so that the 
court may make its own determination of the nature and seriousness of the conduct 
and whether there is a manifest need for such restraints.  (Mar, supra, 28 Cal.4th 
at p. 1221.)  The court may not, we have emphasized, merely rely on the judgment 
of law enforcement or court security officers or the unsubstantiated comments of 
others.  (Ibid.)  The court‘s determination must be based on facts, not rumor or 
innuendo.  (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 652.)  And even when the record 
17 
establishes a manifest need for restraints, the restraint imposed must be the least 
obtrusive or restrictive one that would be effective under the circumstances.  
(Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 291; Mar, at p. 1226.) 
c.  Analysis 
Simon argues first that the trial court abused its discretion by applying a 
lower standard at the guilt phase to reject his request to have the stun belt 
removed.  According to Simon, the court improperly applied something akin to a 
―good cause‖ standard — rather than the required manifest need standard.  In 
support of his contention, Simon points to the fact that the court, after sustaining 
Simon‘s objection to being shackled, appears to have treated the stun belt issue as 
a separate matter.  Simon also points to the trial court‘s statement that use of the 
stun belt was ―appropriate‖ (instead of ―necessary‖) as suggesting that it applied 
something lower than the manifest need standard prescribed by Duran and Mar.   
But Simon‘s guilt phase and penalty phase trials predated Mar.  In that 
case, we held for the first time that the record must demonstrate a manifest need 
— rather than mere good cause — for imposition of a stun belt.  And even if the 
trial court‘s use of the word ―appropriate,‖ rather than ―necessary,‖ may suggest it 
applied a lower standard, the record as a whole establishes that the manifest need 
standard was met.  (See People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 196 [―The record 
of the hearing as a whole persuades us, however, that even though the court, in 
isolated instances, misstated the applicable standard, it nevertheless applied the 
proper concept‖].)  
The record shows that, at the guilt phase, the trial court based its decision 
on Simon‘s violent behavior in custody and his potential danger to others in the 
courtroom.  In particular, the court‘s decision was based on Simon‘s fight with 
another inmate; the discovery, on two different occasions, of shanks in Simon‘s 
18 
cell; the discovery of feces and cleaning products, which Simon had stored in a 
container for possible use as an explosive; and Simon‘s threat against a corrections 
deputy.  The court stated on the record that these incidents showed that Simon was 
a potential danger to jurors, court staff, and counsel.  Likewise, at the penalty 
phase, the court relied on Simon‘s previous possession of shanks as evidence of 
his potential readiness to commit violence. 
The trial court‘s findings and analysis were sufficient to show a manifest 
need for the stun belt.  As we have held previously, a defendant‘s disruptive 
behavior while in jail, including possession of shanks or explosives, justifies the 
imposition of restraints.  (See, e.g., People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 
1050 [evidence of fighting with inmates and possession of illegal razors]; People 
v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1032 [defendant attacked another 
inmate and threatened to kill deputies]; People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 
838 [defendant possessed two shanks in jail and threatened jail deputies]; People 
v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 190-192 [fights with inmates, threatening 
deputies, and possession of weapons and an explosive device].) 
In addition, the record shows the trial court was ―aware of its obligation 
[under Duran] to make its own determination on the need for restraints, and not 
simply defer to the wishes of the prosecutor or courtroom security personnel.‖  
(Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 391.)  The court explained that 
it needed to state on the record the reasons justifying resort to the stun belt and 
identified the specific incidents supporting use of that restraint.  The court further 
demonstrated an understanding of its duty under the Duran line of cases by noting 
at the start of the penalty phase that the mere fact of Simon‘s conviction and 
potential sentence could not justify imposition of the stun belt.  (See Duran, supra, 
16 Cal.3d at p. 293 [―we cannot condone physical restraint of defendants simply 
because they are prisoners already incarcerated on other charges or convictions‖]; 
19 
see also People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 944 [―We agree with defendant 
that his record of violence, or the fact that he is a capital defendant, cannot alone 
justify his shackling‖].)  Instead, the court relied on Simon‘s history of possessing 
shanks, a circumstance we have held sufficient to show a manifest need for 
restraints.  (See People v. Combs, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 838.) 
Simon contends that the incidents of violence supporting the trial court‘s 
decision were not described in sufficient detail because the bailiff had no personal 
knowledge of the events.  This argument is unavailing.  We have found that a trial 
court can base its decision to restrain a defendant on reliable facts provided by law 
enforcement or counsel.  (See, e.g., People v. Wallace, supra, 44 Cal.4th at 
pp. 1049-1050 [upholding trial court‘s imposition of restraints where deputy 
represented that defendant had 16 rules violations while in jail]; People v. Medina 
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 731 [prosecutor‘s representations of facts, made without 
objection or rebuttal by defendant, properly supported trial court‘s ruling to 
impose restraints].)  Unlike in People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 651, where 
the trial court‘s decision was based on ― ‗rumors floating through the jail‘ ‖ about 
an escape attempt, the court here grounded its decision on incidents that had 
already occurred and for which the bailiff provided specific dates.  The court also 
explained that it had inquired further into the significance of the feces and 
cleaning supplies, learning that these items could be used in tandem to create 
explosives.  Moreover, as in People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at page 731, 
Simon did not dispute his possession of the shanks and bomb-making components, 
or his altercation with another inmate.  At the penalty phase, defense counsel did 
object on vagueness grounds to the deputy‘s references to Simon‘s verbal 
aggressiveness, but the court did not base its decision thereon.  To the contrary, 
the court explicitly stated that verbal aggression would not warrant imposing the 
20 
stun belt on Simon.  The court based its rulings at both the guilt and penalty 
phases on uncontested facts related by the bailiff and sheriff‘s deputies. 
Simon argues further that the trial court abused its discretion because it did 
not consider whether the stun belt was the least restrictive or obtrusive restraint 
under the circumstances.  Underlying Simon‘s argument is his claim that the trial 
court failed to consider the potential psychological consequences of his wearing a 
stun belt and the physical effects from electric shock on individuals with certain 
medical conditions — considerations we discussed extensively in Mar.  (See Mar, 
supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 1225-1230.)  But we expressly stated that our discussion 
of these factors was included as guidance for ―future trials.‖  (Id. at p. 1225, italics 
added.)  Because the proceedings below were held prior to our decision in Mar, 
the trial court was ―not required to foresee and discuss each of the concerns 
detailed in that opinion.‖  (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 562.)  The trial 
court, therefore, cannot be said to have abused its discretion.  (See Bryant, Smith 
and Wheeler, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 391.) 
Simon‘s broader argument also founders.  The record shows the trial court 
was deliberate in its choice of restraint, ruling that although the stun belt was 
appropriate, shackles were not.  And defense counsel later conceded that the stun 
belt was less obtrusive than traditional shackles.  The court also explained that it 
was not necessarily concerned Simon would bring in weapons or escape; rather, its 
concern was that Simon‘s tendency toward violence posed an undue risk to those 
in attendance.  Thus, simply searching Simon before he entered the courtroom, as 
defense counsel had recommended, was not enough to protect the public in the 
court‘s view. 
The record further indicates the trial court attempted to make the device as 
comfortable and unobtrusive as possible.  After Simon complained before the guilt 
phase that the stun belt was causing discomfort to his left hip area, the court 
21 
allowed an extra cushion for Simon and inquired about having the belt 
repositioned.  Although Simon indicated that the pillow did not ease his 
discomfort, when defense counsel objected to the belt at the start of the penalty 
phase, he did not argue that Simon had actually been uncomfortable during the 
guilt phase — defense counsel noted only that a pillow had to be provided to 
alleviate Simon‘s discomfort.  The court also directed the deputies to place the belt 
on Simon ―in such a way that it is as unobtrusive as possible.‖  The court then 
asked them to look into obtaining the Band-It — a stun belt worn on the leg, rather 
than the waist — for the remainder of the penalty phase.  This device was not 
available, however, because it was being used at another facility.  But the court did 
ask the deputies to investigate obtaining the device, and Simon never raised the 
issue again.  Contrary to Simon‘s assertions, the court considered less restrictive 
security measures and implemented available procedures to address his discomfort 
and mitigate the stun belt‘s obtrusiveness. 
We therefore hold that the trial court‘s decision to restrain Simon with the 
stun belt was not an abuse of discretion. 
B.  Guilt Phase Issues 
1.  Warrantless Blood Draw 
Simon argues that two blood samples taken following his arrest for the 
Sterling homicide were illegally obtained.  As a result, Simon contends, the DNA 
evidence extracted from the second sample — evidence that connected Simon to 
the Anes and Magpali murders — ought to have been suppressed.  We find any 
error harmless. 
a.  Background 
Simon was arrested in connection with the Sterling homicide between 3:30 
and 4:00 a.m. on May 26, 1996.  A few hours after Simon had been arrested and 
22 
transported to the local police station, at approximately 7:00 a.m., investigating 
officers arranged for a nurse to draw a sample of Simon‘s blood.  Several hours 
after the first blood draw, a nurse took a second blood sample.  Hair and saliva 
samples were also taken.  The second blood sample was used to create a DNA 
profile that was compared to DNA samples taken from the scene of the Anes and 
Magpali murders.  The police did not obtain a warrant for either blood sample. 
Simon moved to suppress all evidence involving the blood samples, 
including the results of DNA testing, on grounds that the samples had been 
obtained without a warrant and absent any exception to the warrant requirement.  
In opposing the motion, the prosecution explained that at the time the samples 
were taken, Simon was on probation for a 1993 attempted robbery conviction.  
According to the prosecution, then, the taking was authorized by a probation 
search condition — which the investigating officers knew of at the time — that 
required Simon to ―[s]ubmit your person and property under your control to search 
or seizure at any time of the day or night . . . with or without a warrant, or 
probable cause.‖  The prosecution argued in the alternative that the first blood 
sample, drawn within hours of Simon‘s arrest for the Sterling homicide, was 
needed to determine Simon‘s level of intoxication and state of mind at the time of 
the homicide, and that the dissipation of such evidence over time created an 
exigent circumstance that excused the warrant requirement.  Finally, the 
prosecution maintained that Simon‘s DNA profile, which was derived from the 
second blood sample, would inevitably have been discovered given that the first 
sample had been obtained lawfully and police already had evidence linking Simon 
to the Anes/Magpali murders at the time of Simon‘s May 26 arrest. 
Following a hearing, the trial court denied Simon‘s motion to suppress.  In 
the court‘s view, the probation search term ―does include the right to search the 
person, . . . including even the bodily fluids, hair, [and] various other samples that 
23 
might be taken.‖  The court therefore concluded that the blood draws, which the 
parties later agreed had been conducted in a ―legally and medically prescribed 
manner,‖ were lawful.  Simon contends that this ruling was erroneous and that 
admission of the DNA evidence derived from the warrantless blood draws violated 
his rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the federal and 
California constitutions. 
b.  Legal Standard 
A defendant may move to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 on 
grounds that a search without a warrant was unreasonable.  A warrantless search is 
presumptively unreasonable, and the prosecution bears the burden of 
demonstrating a legal justification for the search.  (People v. Redd (2010) 48 
Cal.4th 691, 719.)  In reviewing a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to suppress, we 
defer to the trial court‘s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by 
substantial evidence.  (Ibid.)  And in determining whether, on the facts so found, 
the search was reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution, we exercise our independent judgment.  (Ibid.) 
c.  Analysis 
We have not addressed whether a general probation search condition, such 
as the one to which Simon was subject, authorizes a warrantless, nonconsensual 
blood draw.  (Cf. People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266 [postrelease 
community supervision search condition, which provided that ― ‗[t]he person, and 
his or her residence and possessions, shall be subject to search at any time of the 
day or night, with or without a warrant . . . ,‘ ‖ encompassed warrantless blood 
draws].)  And we need not do so here:  even if the May 26 blood draws exceeded 
the scope of Simon‘s probation search condition, the trial court‘s decision not to 
24 
suppress the DNA evidence derived from those blood draws was harmless in this 
case. 
At the time of Simon‘s arrest on May 26, 1996, investigators had 
significant evidence linking him to the murders of Anes and Magpali.  Five 
months earlier — in January — Simon had been pulled over and found in 
possession of a nine-millimeter handgun.  By May 7 — almost three weeks before 
Simon‘s arrest for the Sterling murder — investigators had determined that this 
particular gun was the source of the 10 cartridge casings found near the bodies of 
Anes and Magpali.  In addition, the officers who ordered the blood draw knew that 
Simon had recently shot and killed another person (i.e., Sterling). 
So when Simon‘s blood was drawn, he was in custody for the Sterling 
homicide, and the police had key evidence tying him to the murders of Anes and 
Magpali — namely, Simon had been found in possession of the murder weapon.  
Given this evidence, and the fact Simon was lawfully in custody for a separate 
homicide, the trial court would have, to a near certainty, ordered a subsequent 
blood sample be taken from Simon even if the initial samples had been drawn 
unlawfully.  That new sample would have disclosed Simon‘s DNA profile — the 
very information used against him at trial.  Any error in not suppressing the blood 
samples was therefore harmless.  (See People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548, 
569 [finding any error in not suppressing warrantless blood draw ―harmless‖ 
because ―even had the [trial] court ruled the blood sample unlawfully drawn, 
[probable cause existed so] it could have later ordered a new blood sample to be 
drawn‖].)6 
                                              
6 
Following oral argument in this case, the United States Supreme Court held 
that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not justify law enforcement‘s 
failure to obtain a warrant before drawing the blood of someone lawfully arrested 
 
(footnote continued on next page) 
25 
2.  Severance 
Simon argues that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his 
motion to sever the Anes/Magpali counts from the Sterling counts.  We find no 
error. 
a.  Background 
Before the guilt phase, Simon moved to sever the Anes/Magpali charges 
(counts 1-5)7 from the Sterling charges (counts 6-7),8 and made several arguments 
for why joinder of the offenses would be ―so prejudicial that it would deny [him] a 
fair trial.‖  First, Simon argued that evidence from each incident was not cross-
                                                                                                                                                              
 
(footnote continued from previous page) 
 
on suspicion of drunk driving.  (See Birchfield v. North Dakota (June 23, 2016, 
No. 14-1468) ___U.S.___ [2016 WL 3434398].)  Warrantless blood draws, in 
other words, cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest.  This holding does 
not change the result here because, we conclude, any error in not suppressing the 
blood samples was harmless.  And we need not consider the extent, if any, to 
which a search incident to arrest differs from a probation search. 
7 
Count 1 charged Simon with the murder of Anes.  It also alleged that he 
used a firearm during the murder and that the murder was committed during the 
commission of a robbery.  Anes‘s missing jewelry and speaker were the basis for 
the robbery allegation.  Count 2 charged Simon with the murder of Magpali.  It 
also alleged that he used a firearm during the murder and that the murder was 
committed during the commission of a robbery, kidnapping, and rape.  Magpali‘s 
missing jewelry was the basis for the robbery allegation.  Count 3 charged Simon 
with the rape of Magpali.  It also alleged that he used a deadly weapon during the 
rape and that the rape was committed during the course of a kidnapping.  Count 4 
charged Simon with kidnapping Magpali.  It also alleged that he used a firearm 
during the commission of the kidnapping.  Count 5 charged Simon with 
possession of a firearm — on or about December 3, 1995 — after previously being 
convicted of attempted robbery. 
8 
Count 6 charged Simon with the murder of Sterling.  It also alleged that he 
used a firearm during the murder.  Count 7 charged Simon with possession of a 
firearm — on or about May 25, 1996 — after previously being convicted of 
attempted robbery. 
26 
admissible because the events were unrelated.  Second, he contended that evidence 
from both incidents was highly inflammatory.  Simon noted that the Anes/Magpali 
incident involved the killing of two teenagers, one of whom was sexually 
assaulted, and the Sterling shooting appeared to be gang related.  Third, Simon 
claimed that the evidence supporting the Sterling charges was relatively weak 
compared to the ―strong‖ Anes/Magpali charges.  And fourth, Simon argued that 
because the Sterling charges did not independently give rise to special 
circumstances warranting the death penalty, their joinder with the Anes/Magpali 
capital offenses would be highly prejudicial.  
Following a hearing, the trial court denied Simon‘s motion to sever.  The 
court offered the following explanation:  ―it does appear to me that there is some 
potential prejudice.  However, I don‘t think that that prejudice outweighs the 
benefits.  And so without saying more, I‘m going to deny the motion.‖  
b.  Legal Standard 
Section 954, in relevant part, permits the joinder of ―two or more different 
offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses.‖  Joinder is ordinarily favored 
because it avoids the increased expenditures of funds and judicial resources that 
may result from separate trials.  (See Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 
1205, 1220 (Alcala).)  Joinder, therefore, ―is the course of action preferred by the 
law.‖  (Ibid.)  Nonetheless, a trial court has discretion to sever properly joined 
charges in the interest of justice and for good cause.  (§ 954; see People v. 
Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 37.) 
Our review proceeds in two steps.  First, we examine whether, in light of 
the information available at the time, the trial court abused its discretion in 
denying the severance motion prior to the guilt phase.  (People v. Mendoza (2000) 
24 Cal.4th 130, 161 (Mendoza).)  Where, as here, the statutory requirements for 
27 
joinder are met,9 a defendant must make a ―clear showing of prejudice‖ to 
establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.  (Id. at 
p. 160.)  A defendant seeking severance of properly joined charged offenses must 
make a stronger showing of potential prejudice than would be necessary to 
exclude evidence of other crimes in a severed trial.  (People v. Soper (2009) 45 
Cal.4th 759, 774.) 
Second, even if the trial court‘s ruling was proper as a matter of state law, 
we will reverse the judgment if the defendant shows that joinder of the charges 
actually resulted in ―gross unfairness‖ amounting to a denial of due process during 
the guilt phase.  (Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 162.) 
c.  Analysis 
i.  Abuse of Discretion 
We analyze severance questions by considering a case‘s specific facts.  
Whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying severance depends, thus, on 
the particular circumstances of each case.  (People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 
155, 172.)  The factors we consider are as follows:  (1) whether the evidence 
relating to the various charges would be cross-admissible in separate trials, 
(2) whether any of the charges are unusually likely to inflame the jury against the 
defendant, (3) whether a weak case has been joined with a strong case or with 
another weak case, and (4) whether one of the charges is a capital offense or the 
joinder of the charges converts the matter into a capital case.  (People v. Elliott 
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 551.) 
                                              
9 
Because murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping are all assaultive crimes 
against the person, the Anes/Magpali incident and the Sterling incident both 
involved ―offenses of the same class of crimes,‖ thus satisfying the statutory 
requirements for joinder under section 954.  (See People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 
Cal.4th 398, 438-439; People v. Rhoden (1972) 6 Cal.3d 519, 524-525.) 
28 
We find that Simon has failed to establish a ―clear showing‖ of potential 
prejudice under these factors.  (Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 160.)  So he 
cannot show the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever. 
(a)  Cross-admissibility 
The prosecution conceded below that evidence for the separate incidents 
would not be cross-admissible in separate trials.  Although cross-admissibility of 
evidence is often an independently sufficient condition justifying a trial court‘s 
denial of severance, it is not a necessary one.  (See Alcala, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 
pp. 1221-1222, 1227.)  In the absence of cross-admissibility, we turn to the 
remaining factors to assess whether the trial court abused its discretion.  (See 
People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 630-631 (McKinnon).)  
(b)  Particularly Inflammatory Charges 
Simon has not made a clear showing of potential prejudice under this 
factor.  Comparing the two sets of charges, it appears plain that the Anes/Magpali 
murders were more likely to inflame the jury‘s passions.  The victims, though no 
longer minors, were still teenagers.  One of them was shot eight times, while the 
other was kidnapped from the scene and raped before being shot twice in the head.  
The facts of the gang-related Sterling murder, though far from innocuous, were 
unlikely to evoke the same emotions as the Anes/Magpali crimes. 
Indeed, courts have recognized that sex crimes can be quite inflammatory, 
especially when they involve young victims.  (See Williams v. Superior Court 
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 441, 452 (Williams) [―It is true that the present case does not 
involve the ‗highly inflammatory‘ issue of sex crimes against children‖], 
superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Alcala, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 
p. 1229, fn. 19.)  In Coleman v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 129 
(Coleman), a Court of Appeal case on which the parties rely, the defendant was 
29 
charged with sex crimes against an 11-year-old child and a 13-year old child.  The 
appellate court deemed it prejudicial to join these charges with a more serious 
murder charge, in part, because sexual crimes against children are ―highly 
inflammatory‖ and might have ―a very serious prejudicial effect upon the jury.‖  
(Id. at p. 139.) 
But the animating concern underlying this factor is not merely whether 
evidence from one offense is repulsive, because repulsion alone does not 
necessarily engender undue prejudice.  (See People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 
Cal.4th 830, 850 (Capistrano).)  Rather, the issue is ― ‗ ―whether strong evidence 
of a lesser but inflammatory crime might be used to bolster a weak prosecution 
case‖ on another crime.‘ ‖  (Ibid.)  In Capistrano, for instance, we held that 
joinder of a brutal rape incident with a separate robbery did not unduly inflame the 
jury against the defendant.  (Ibid.)  We so held, in part, because the evidence of the 
separate robbery was far from weak — the defendant had admitted his 
participation in the robbery.  (Ibid.)  We therefore found no abuse of discretion 
because there was little risk that details of the rape would have bolstered an 
otherwise weak robbery charge. 
Coleman illustrates the flip side of this point.  There, the Court of Appeal 
explained that the evidence supporting the more serious murder charge was 
relatively weak.  (See Coleman, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 138.)  Indeed, ―the 
only evidence connecting defendant to the [murder] consists of the palm and 
thumb prints identified at the scene of the crime.‖  (Ibid.)  ―If a juror has a 
reasonable and appropriate doubt about the identity of the murderer,‖ continued 
the court, ―the juror may find it difficult to maintain that doubt in the face of direct 
evidence concerning repulsive crimes against minors committed by [defendant].‖  
(Ibid.)  As a result, the Court of Appeal found the trial court had abused its 
discretion in denying the defendant‘s motion to sever.  (Id. at pp. 139-140.) 
30 
The situation here is similar to that in Capistrano.  There is no reason to 
presume that the potentially inflammatory evidence of sex crimes from the 
Anes/Magpali incident was likely to prejudice Simon regarding the Sterling 
charges.  Without question, the details of the Anes/Magpali incident are 
disturbing.  But any effect this evidence would have had on the jury as a result of 
joinder was not unduly prejudicial given that the Sterling murder was no more 
serious an offense and was also supported by strong evidence.  Unlike in Coleman, 
where joinder of inflammatory evidence was used to bolster a more serious — but 
weaker — case, the Anes/Magpali charges here independently gave rise to the 
death penalty by involving several special circumstance allegations.  The 
Anes/Magpali murders, thus, cannot be characterized as the ―lesser‖ crimes.  
(Capistrano, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 850.)  Moreover, unlike in Coleman, where 
the evidence supporting the joined murder charge was relatively weak, here — for 
reasons discussed below — the Sterling homicide was supported by strong 
evidence. 
There is little chance, likewise, that joinder of the Sterling matter 
prejudiced Simon with respect to the more inflammatory Anes/Magpali murders.  
True, we have recognized that gang evidence, even if relevant, can be ―highly 
inflammatory.‖  (McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 655; see also Williams, supra, 
36 Cal.3d at p. 453 [explaining that ―evidence of gang membership . . . might 
indeed have a very prejudicial, if not inflammatory effect on the jury in a joint 
trial‖].)  But Simon does not explain why introducing evidence of a gang rivalry 
was sufficiently inflammatory that denial of severance constituted an abuse of 
discretion.  And our case law is to the contrary. 
In McKinnon, we held that the proffered gang evidence ―was not unduly 
inflammatory.‖  (McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 631.)  The defendant there 
was charged with two unrelated murders.  In the first, the defendant walked up to a 
31 
stranger, placed a gun against that person‘s head, and shot him ―for no apparent 
reason.‖  (Id. at p. 620.)  In the second, the defendant was engaged in an argument 
with a rival gang member before fatally shooting him.  (Ibid.)  In addition to 
evidence of gang name, membership, and rivalry, the prosecution submitted 
evidence that the defendant had shot the latter victim in retaliation for a separate 
gang-related murder.  (Id. at pp. 624-625.) 
On appeal, the defendant argued that joinder of the charges was prejudicial 
because gang evidence from the second incident was unduly inflammatory.  
(McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 631.)  We rejected that argument for three 
reasons:  (1) the prosecution did not present any other evidence of gang violence 
aside from evidence that the murder was related to a prior gang-related killing, (2) 
any inflammatory effect of the gang evidence ―paled in comparison‖ to the 
prejudicial impact of the ―absolute senselessness‖ of the first incident, and (3) any 
inflammatory effect was not prejudicial because both cases were supported by 
strong evidence.  (Ibid.) 
So too here.  In this case, as in McKinnon, the gang evidence from one 
incident (i.e., the Sterling murder) was not likely to alter the outcome of the other 
(i.e., the Anes/Magpali murders).  In fact, there was even less gang evidence 
introduced here than in McKinnon.  In that case, in addition to gang name, 
membership, and rivalry, evidence was introduced of a separate gang-related 
killing.  (McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 631.)  The only gang evidence 
admitted here, in contrast, was limited testimony that Sterling‘s gang affiliation 
served as the impetus for Simon‘s rage.  Furthermore, any inflammatory effect of 
the limited gang evidence here ―paled in comparison‖ to the prejudicial effect of 
the murder, kidnapping, and rape charges in the Anes/Magpali incident.  (Ibid.)  
This point is even clearer here than was the case in McKinnon, where the 
32 
prejudicial impact of the other crime was its ―senselessness‖ (ibid.); here, the 
Anes/Magpali charges were both senseless and gruesome. 
Unlike in Williams, moreover, where gang affiliation was used to implicate 
the defendant as the perpetrator, the gang evidence here was neither relied on nor 
was it necessary to link Simon to the strongly supported Anes/Magpali charges.  
(Cf. Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 453.)  Not only was there DNA evidence 
linking Simon to the Anes/Magpali murders, but Simon was also found in 
possession of the gun used to kill both victims.  What made the gang evidence in 
Williams prejudicial — to wit, that a jury not otherwise convinced beyond a 
reasonable doubt of the defendant‘s involvement might use gang evidence to tip 
the scales and convict — is therefore not a concern in the present case.  (See also 
Capistrano, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 853 [joinder of attempted murder charge did 
not deprive defendant of a fair trial where the only evidence of defendant‘s gang 
membership was the victim‘s testimony that ―he believed defendant was a gang 
member‖]; People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 173 [defendant failed to 
show requisite prejudice from joinder of other murder charges because any 
―inflammatory effect of defendant‘s gang membership as to the [other] case was 
neutralized by the fact that the victims were also gang members‖].) 
Only when a defendant has made a clear showing of potential prejudice 
may we find an abuse of discretion in this context.  (See Mendoza, supra, 24 
Cal.4th at p. 160.)  There was none here.  Simon has not shown the potentially 
inflammatory evidence from the Anes/Magpali incident would have altered the 
outcome of the Sterling charges, or vice versa. 
(c)  Weak Case Joined to Strong Case 
Simon fails to establish a clear showing of potential prejudice under this 
factor because neither the Anes/Magpali incident nor the Sterling incident was a 
33 
weak case that needed joinder to bolster the likelihood of conviction.  (See People 
v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 173-174.) 
The core prejudice concern arising in connection with this issue is that 
jurors may aggregate evidence and convict on weak charges that might not merit 
conviction in separate trials.  (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 453.)  This concern 
is especially pronounced when evidence of a lesser but inflammatory incident 
might be used to bolster a weak prosecution case as to another incident.  
(Capistrano, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 850.)  But even where evidence from one 
incident could be considered ―inflammatory‖ as the term is understood in our case 
law (see id. at pp. 850-851), we will find no abuse of discretion if the evidence of 
guilt for each of the joined incidents is sufficiently compelling (see, e.g., 
McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 631 [―This was not a matter in which a weak 
case was joined with a strong case, or with another weak case, thereby ‗causing a 
spillover effect that might have unfairly altered the outcome of the trial.‘  
[Citation.]  Strong evidence supported both cases‖]). 
Such is the case here.  Both the Anes/Magpali and Sterling charges were 
supported by strong evidence that would likely have merited conviction in 
separate trials.  As to the Anes/Magpali incident, Simon conceded below that 
strong evidence supported these charges.  The most damaging piece of evidence 
was that Simon‘s DNA profile matched the DNA profile of semen evidence 
collected from Magpali‘s body and clothing.  Such evidence, we have held many 
times, indicates a strong case.  (See, e.g., People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 
396; People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 494; People v. Geier (2007) 41 
Cal.4th 555, 576.)  In addition, Simon was found in possession of the gun used to 
kill Anes and Magpali during a traffic stop less than seven weeks after the 
murders.  Simon also exhibited a guilty mind following that stop in trying to 
coerce Meeks, Simon‘s front seat passenger, to claim ownership of the firearm. 
34 
As to the Sterling incident, Simon concedes there was ―strong proof‖ he 
shot and killed Sterling.  Nonetheless, Simon argued below that the Sterling 
charges were ―weak‖ because evidence purportedly suggested the killing was 
justified as self-defense or could be mitigated to manslaughter by imperfect self-
defense.  Although the availability of defense theories may be relevant under this 
factor, there was very little to support the defenses Simon offered in this case.  
There was no meaningful evidence either that Sterling was armed or that he was 
the aggressor.  Quite the opposite.  There was substantial evidence in the record 
that Simon was the aggressor.  In light of the admittedly strong proof that Simon 
shot and killed Sterling, combined with testimony that Simon was the aggressor, 
we find these charges supported by strong evidence.  (See People v. Johnson 
(2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 752 [―Although defendant presented an alibi defense to 
[one of the murders], a mere imbalance in the evidence between the joined crimes 
does not signal a risk that one charge will be prejudicially bolstered‖].) 
Simon‘s possession of the gun used to kill Anes and Magpali, DNA 
evidence linking Simon to Magpali‘s rape, and uncontroverted evidence that 
Simon — after having been the aggressor — shot Sterling indicate that both 
incidents were supported by strong evidence.  Consequently, we find no clear 
showing of potential prejudice under this factor. 
(d)  Capital Offense 
Although joinder resulted in the Sterling murder being charged as a capital 
offense, Simon has not clearly shown potential prejudice under this factor because 
joining the charges neither converted the entire matter into a capital case nor 
bolstered the possibility of Simon receiving a death sentence.   
Denials of severance involving capital charges generally require a ―higher 
degree of scrutiny and care.‖  (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 454.)  Even greater 
35 
scrutiny is required, we have said, when the joinder of separate murder charges 
gives rise to the special circumstance allegation of multiple murder.  (Ibid.)  But 
nothing in our prior cases suggests that severance is required whenever capital 
charges are involved.  (People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 171.)  Further, 
where one of two joined murder incidents would independently give rise to a 
capital charge, there is less risk of prejudice.  (See People v. Johnson, supra, 61 
Cal.4th at p. 752 [explaining that ―joinder of the two killings did not convert the 
matter into a capital offense because [one of the killings] included two kidnapping 
and robbery special-circumstance allegations and thus made defendant eligible for 
the death penalty‖]; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 607 [―unlike the 
situation in Williams, joinder of the Tanya murder charge did not convert the case 
into a capital one, for the properly joined Pauline/Tony charges alone satisfied the 
multiple-murder special-circumstance statute‖].) 
Here, joining the charges did not convert the matter into a capital case, and 
the separate offenses were supported by strong evidence.  Without joinder, Simon 
would still have faced the death penalty based on the special circumstance 
allegations that the murder of Anes was committed during the commission of a 
robbery and the murder of Magpali was committed during the commission of a 
robbery, kidnapping, and rape.  (Former § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)-(iii), now 
§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)-(C).)  Moreover, the multiple-murder special-
circumstance allegation was available to the prosecution, even if the Sterling 
murder had not been joined, because the Anes/Magpali incident involved two 
murders.  (See People v. Ruiz, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 607.)  As a result, joining the 
charges did not convert the matter into a capital case. 
Furthermore, there was strong evidence supporting each incident.  So 
neither case posed an undue risk of unjustified conviction.  (See People v. Myles 
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1202 [―In the present case, the evidence supporting each 
36 
of the murder cases was not weak and neither case posed the risk of an 
unjustifiable conviction‖]; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 800 [finding 
―no significant risk of an unjustified conviction on any of the murder charges 
because . . . evidence in both cases was strong‖].)  Because joinder did not bolster 
the possibility of conviction, joinder also did not bolster the possibility of the 
death penalty being imposed as punishment.  We find no clear showing of 
potential prejudice under this factor. 
ii.  Gross Unfairness 
Even if we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 
severance pretrial, we must also determine ―whether events after the court‘s ruling 
demonstrate that joinder actually resulted in ‗gross unfairness‘ amounting to a 
denial of defendant‘s constitutional right to fair trial or due process of law.‖  
(People v. Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 46.)  We find no violation of due 
process. 
In determining whether joinder resulted in gross unfairness, we have 
observed that a judgment will be reversed on this ground only if it is reasonably 
probable that the jury was influenced by the joinder in its verdict of guilt.  (People 
v. Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 49.)  But, as noted above, both the 
Anes/Magpali charges and the Sterling charges were supported by strong evidence 
warranting conviction had the incidents been tried separately.  What is more, the 
fact that the jury found Simon guilty of first degree murder in the killings of Anes 
and Magpali, but only second degree murder of Sterling, ―strongly suggests that 
the jury was capable of weighing the evidence and differentiating among [the] 
various charges.‖  (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 217, disapproved on 
another ground in People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 53, fn. 19; see 
also People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 927 [―Where the jury returns a guilty 
37 
verdict of a lesser crime, or, as here, fails to convict at all on some charges, we are 
confident the jury was capable of, and did, differentiate among defendant‘s 
crimes‖]; People v. Ruiz, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 607 [―the fact that the jury found 
defendant guilty of only second degree murder of Tanya strongly suggests that the 
jury was capable of differentiating between defendant‘s various murders‖].) 
Simon argues nonetheless that joinder resulted in gross unfairness because 
the trial court failed to adequately caution jurors against considering evidence 
from the Anes/Magpali incident when rendering a verdict on the Sterling counts, 
and vice versa.  But the court instructed the jury, pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.02, 
as follows:  ―Each count charges a distinct crime.  You must decide each Count 
separately.  The defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the 
crimes charged.  Your finding as to each Count must be stated in a separate 
verdict.‖  Defense counsel also reminded the jury of its duty to consider the facts 
separately in his closing argument.  Absent some showing to the contrary — a 
showing Simon has not provided — we presume the jury followed these 
instructions.  (See People v. Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 48-49 [―The 
record shows moreover that the jury was instructed on the elements of each of the 
charged crimes, told that ‗each count charges a distinct crime,‘ and directed to 
‗decide each count separately.‘  (CALJIC No. 17.02.)  Absent some showing to 
the contrary, we presume the jury followed the court‘s instructions.  [Citation.]  
No such showing was made here‖].) 
Simon‘s reliance on Bean v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1998) 163 F.3d 1073 
(Bean) is unavailing.  In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that, despite the state trial 
court‘s having instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.02, the court‘s 
refusal to sever two sets of charges deprived the defendant of a fair trial.  (Id. at 
p. 1083.)  Bean is distinguishable on several grounds.  First, the prosecutor during 
closing argument there ―repeatedly urged the jury to consider evidence of Bean‘s 
38 
‗modus operandi‘ to determine whether he was guilty of both [sets of] crimes.‖  
(Ibid.)  Although the prosecutor here, in a couple of instances during closing 
argument, appeared to cross-reference the two incidents, these isolated remarks 
over the course of 80 pages of transcript did not approach the repeated conflation 
of events found in Bean.  Second, unlike in Bean, there is no ―substantial 
disparity‖ (id. at p. 1085) between the strength of the two cases here such that the 
evidence from one risked strengthening an ―otherwise weak case‖ (id. at p. 1083).  
As explained above, the evidence supporting both sets of charges was quite strong 
here.  Simon was arrested with the Anes/Magpali murder weapon, and Simon‘s 
DNA profile matched that of semen evidence collected from Magpali.  
Uncontroverted evidence also showed that Simon — after having been the 
aggressor — shot Sterling in the chest.  Third, unlike in Bean, there is ―affirmative 
evidence of the jury‘s ability to assess the [two incidents] separately.‖  (Id. at 
p. 1086.)  The jury here found Simon guilty of first degree murder in the killings 
of Anes and Magpali, but only second degree murder of Sterling.  We therefore 
have no compelling reason to doubt that the jury succeeded in sufficiently 
compartmentalizing the evidence.  (Id. at p. 1085.) 
What we conclude in light of these factors is that Simon has not shown 
joinder to have resulted in gross unfairness such that he was deprived of a fair 
trial. 
3.  Failure to Instruct on Imperfect Self-Defense 
Simon argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on 
imperfect self-defense with respect to the Sterling homicide.  We see no error.  
a.  Background 
In arguing before the trial court for jury instructions on self-defense, 
defense counsel cited testimony that Sterling had been convicted of a prior assault, 
39 
Haynes‘s statements that she observed an argument outside between Sterling and 
Simon, testimony by Haynes and Gentry that they heard three gunshots fired 
(implying the existence of another gun), testimony by Gentry that Sterling was 
bigger than Simon, and testimony that the fatal shot was fired at close range.  
From this evidence, defense counsel asserted, ―it appears from the record at least a 
reasonable inference could be drawn that Mr. Simon and Mr. Sterling are arguing 
with each other.‖ 
The prosecutor conceded there was evidence that Sterling and Simon had 
been arguing, but that any potential third shot fired most likely came from the 
same gun.  The prosecutor continued that the defense failed to make a case for 
imperfect self-defense ―because there‘s no evidence whatsoever of any fear or 
honest belief on [Simon‘s] part here,‖ and ―[b]ecause we have no idea whatsoever 
of any aggressive behavior by Mr. Sterling toward Mr. Simon.‖  
The trial court denied Simon‘s request for a jury instruction on imperfect 
self-defense, stating ―No, I don‘t see it, to be honest with you.  I don‘t think 
there‘s a factual basis for this . . . .‖  The instructions jurors did receive gave them 
the option to find Simon guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary 
manslaughter under a heat of passion or sudden quarrel theory, or to acquit Simon 
based on a theory of complete self-defense.  Simon now challenges the trial 
court‘s refusal to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense, arguing that a jury 
could have concluded that he had an actual but unreasonable belief that he needed 
to defend himself against imminent harm from Sterling.  
b.  Legal Standard 
An instance of imperfect self-defense occurs when a defendant acts in the 
actual but unreasonable belief that he or she is in imminent danger of great bodily 
injury or death.  (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561.)  Imperfect self-
40 
defense differs from complete self-defense, which requires not only an honest but 
also a reasonable belief of the need to defend oneself.  (People v. Elmore (2014) 
59 Cal.4th 121, 133-134.)  It is well established that imperfect self-defense is not 
an affirmative defense.  (See People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 199-201 
(Barton).)  It is instead a shorthand way of describing one form of voluntary 
manslaughter.  (Id. at p. 200.)  Because imperfect self-defense reduces an 
intentional, unlawful killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating 
the element of malice, this form of voluntary manslaughter is considered a lesser 
and necessarily included offense of murder.  (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 
Cal.4th 142, 154.) 
A trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on a lesser included 
uncharged offense if there is substantial evidence that would absolve the defendant 
from guilt of the greater, but not the lesser, offense.  (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 
Cal.4th 690, 733 (Waidla).)  Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury 
could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed.  
(People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 587-588 (Manriquez); see also 
Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 201, fn. 8 [―Substantial evidence is evidence 
sufficient to ‗deserve consideration by the jury,‘ that is, evidence that a reasonable 
jury could find persuasive‘ ‖].)  Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is 
insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.  (Mendoza, 
supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 174; see also Barton, at p. 201 [―the need to [instruct sua 
sponte on imperfect self-defense] arises only when there is substantial evidence 
that the defendant killed in unreasonable self-defense, not when the evidence is 
‗minimal and insubstantial‘ ‖ (fn. omitted)].) 
We review de novo a trial court‘s decision not to give an imperfect self-
defense instruction.  (See Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 581; see also Waidla, 
supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 733 [―An appellate court applies the independent or de 
41 
novo standard of review to the failure by a trial court to instruct on an uncharged 
offense that was assertedly lesser than, and included, in a charged offense‖].) 
c.  Analysis 
According to Simon, ―a theory of unreasonable self-defense was supported 
by the evidence since jurors may have concluded that [he] actually believed in the 
need for self-defense, but that his belief was not objectively reasonable.‖  In 
support of this claim, Simon emphasizes how, after his initial showing of 
aggressive behavior, he apologized, shook Sterling‘s hand, and hugged him before 
leaving the apartment.  
We disagree.  The facts, though hardly pellucid, suggest that Simon — not 
Sterling — was the aggressor in their confrontation.  It was Simon who began 
cursing at Sterling after the latter identified himself as a member of IE, an 
apparent rival of Simon‘s gang.  Despite Sterling lifting up his shirt to prove that 
he was unarmed, Simon asked for someone to retrieve the gun Simon had brought 
to the apartment.  Simon asserts he was a changed man once he returned from the 
bathroom, claiming that he had ―calmed down‖ at that point and that he had 
apologized to Sterling as he shook his hand.  Yet moments later, Simon walked 
over to Williams and elbowed him in the face.  When Gentry sought to intervene, 
Simon told her to ―shut up,‖ threatening to shoot her too.  Once outside, Simon 
and Sterling began to argue.  And in an interview with police, Jamal Brown said 
that Simon ―totally shot [Sterling] cold blooded.‖  Jamal remarked that Simon had 
―shot [Sterling,] what for I don‘t know.‖  Jamal also insisted that he had heard 
only two gunshots. 
Simon, meanwhile, does not point to any evidence indicating that Sterling 
was the aggressor.  Nor does Simon present evidence that he ever perceived that 
Sterling –– who was unarmed –– posed a risk of imminent peril.  Given the 
42 
paucity of support for Simon‘s position, our decision in Manriquez is also 
instructive.  (Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 580-583.)  There, we rejected the 
defendant‘s claim that the trial court improperly refused his request for a jury 
instruction on imperfect self-defense, noting that the record was ―devoid of 
evidence‖ supporting the defendant‘s subjective fear.  (Id. at p. 581.)  The 
evidence there included how the defendant had allegedly told officers he ― ‗had 
heard some threats‘ ‖ that the victim wanted to kill him.  (Id. at p. 582.)  A witness 
to the murder testified that the defendant appeared angry when he left the room to 
meet the victim, that the victim was unarmed, and that the victim asked the 
defendant, ― ‗What is your problem with me?‘ ‖  (Id. at pp. 561-562.)  The 
defendant did not testify at trial.  (Id. at pp. 567-568.) 
The record here is equally devoid of evidence tending to show Simon‘s 
subjective fear of Sterling.  Simon, like the defendant in Manriquez, initiated any 
aggressive interactions — here, by cursing at Sterling for being a member of a 
rival gang.  Similarly, the record indicates that Sterling was unarmed.  Simon also 
did not testify, and there is no evidence he ever told anyone that he had acted out 
of fear. 
To the extent Simon argues that the trial court‘s decision to give an 
instruction on complete self-defense required it to also instruct on imperfect self-
defense, we find no error.  Because we conclude there was not substantial 
evidence supporting Simon‘s actual belief that he was in imminent danger of great 
bodily injury or death, the trial court would not have erred had it likewise refused 
to instruct on complete self-defense.  (See People v. Rodriguez (1997) 53 
Cal.App.4th 1250, 1270 [―Further, just because the court permitted instructions on 
perfect self-defense does not mean that substantial evidence supported the giving 
of an imperfect self-defense instruction.  To the contrary, it would not have been 
error for the trial court to have denied perfect self-defense instructions with regard 
43 
to Contreras because no substantial evidence supported such a defense‖]; see also 
People v. De Leon (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 815, 824 [―It is hard to fault appellant‘s 
logic.  If there was substantial evidence of his ‗honest belief‘ for self-defense 
purposes, there was substantial evidence of his ‗honest belief‘ for imperfect self-
defense purposes.  [¶]  But we are satisfied, and so hold, there was not substantial 
evidence of ‗honest belief‘ for either self-defense or imperfect self-defense‖].) 
We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing Simon‘s request to 
instruct on imperfect self-defense. 
C.  Penalty Phase Issues 
1.  Victim Impact Evidence 
Simon argues that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting 
victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of his trial.  We are not 
convinced. 
a.  Background 
Prior to the penalty phase, Simon moved to exclude victim impact evidence 
on multiple grounds.  First, Simon called for exclusion of testimony regarding the 
appropriate punishment for or characteristics of Simon.  The trial court agreed.  
Second, Simon requested to limit victim impact testimony to a single surviving 
family member.  The trial court denied the motion, noting that ―California has 
never placed‖ such a limitation.  Third, Simon sought to exclude emotional, 
tearful, or angry testimony, explaining that some testimony had been very 
emotional in the first penalty trial.  The trial court agreed that testimony may not 
be so emotional that it becomes unduly prejudicial.  The court reasoned, however, 
that it could not ex ante exclude or even distinguish what qualifies as ―overly 
emotional or inflammatory.‖  The court therefore ruled that this issue was 
something to monitor as the proceedings developed.  
44 
Fourth, Simon moved to exclude any testimony or evidence regarding 
awards or academic achievements of the victims — a request the trial court 
promptly denied.  Fifth, Simon asked to exclude artwork by Magpali.  The trial 
court denied the motion but stipulated that such evidence not be ―overly time 
consuming or overly prejudicial.‖  Similarly, Simon moved to exclude ―testimony 
regarding future plans‖ of the victims.  The trial court ruled such evidence 
admissible, reiterating again that such testimony may not be overly time 
consuming or specific.  
Sixth, Simon sought to exclude photographs and testimony going back to 
the victims‘ births, suggesting that any such evidence be limited to ―a period of 
time closer to the time of death.‖  The trial court denied Simon‘s objections to 
both the baby photographs and the testimony.  And seventh, Simon requested that 
all victim impact evidence be excluded because such testimony is so broad that it 
violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, 
section 17 of the California Constitution.  The trial court denied the motion while 
repeating that there would be limitations.  The court recognized that the critical 
question is whether victim impact evidence becomes ―overly time consuming, 
overly repetitious, things of that nature,‖ which could not be determined at a 
pretrial hearing. 
b.  Evidence Presented 
i.  Sherry Magpali  
Two victim impact witnesses testified regarding Sherry Magpali:  her sister 
Jasmine and brother Jeffrey. 
At the time of her death, Sherry was a 19-year-old student at a local 
community college, having graduated magna cum laude from high school the year 
before.  Jasmine and Jeffrey described their sister as a creative, fun person with a 
45 
lot of friends.  Sherry enjoyed singing, playing dress up, and taking pictures with 
her siblings.  She also hoped to become an artist and was interested in graphics, 
Japanese animation, and poetry.  Some of Sherry‘s artwork was entered into 
evidence, along with photographs of Sherry as a baby, young child, and young 
adult. 
The night of the incident, Sherry asked Jasmine and Jeffrey to go with her 
to the party, but both declined.  The next day, her siblings were at a church retreat 
when they were pulled aside and told they had to be taken home.  Although they 
were not told what had happened, Jasmine said she already knew something was 
wrong.  Jasmine described getting home, hearing people screaming, seeing her 
mother lying on the floor after fainting, and no one telling her what was going on.  
Jasmine did not learn about how her sister was murdered until she read the 
newspaper.  Jasmine described being angry when she heard about the way her 
sister was killed.  And as a result of her sister‘s death, Jasmine said she became 
introverted and was no longer a trusting person.  She said her brother Jeffrey 
became the same way. 
Jeffrey testified that at first he did not believe Sherry had been murdered 
because she was such a strong person.  He said it hurt knowing how his sister died 
and that it would have been different if Sherry had died some other way, like in a 
car accident or from a medical condition.  He said it was also difficult to attend the 
funeral because that was when he realized his sister was really gone.  
Jasmine described the impact of Sherry‘s death on their mother.  For years 
after the incident, Jasmine woke up to her mother crying in the middle of the 
night.  She also explained that the family did not talk to each other much anymore; 
holidays, she said, felt empty.  
46 
ii.  Vincent Anes 
Regarding Vincent Anes, three victim impact witnesses testified:  his 
mother Priscilla Severson, his stepfather Timothy Severson, and his brother Dino 
Anes.  Jurors were shown approximately 11 photographs of Vincent, ranging from 
age seven to death. 
Priscilla described Vincent as a good, sweet, and thoughtful boy who was 
never in trouble.  Vincent was a playful, but obedient, son who always did his 
homework and helped his younger brother with math.  Vincent had a close 
connection with his stepfather, who taught Vincent how to work on cars.  At the 
time of his death, Vincent was a senior in high school and a good student.  Vincent 
planned on joining the military, then going to college to become a dentist.  
The night of the incident, Priscilla was awakened by Vincent‘s friends, 
asking if he was home.  She did not understand what Vincent‘s friends were 
saying, though, and thought Vincent might have just been in a car accident.  Dino 
was also awakened and recalled people panicking and screaming.  Priscilla called 
her parents, who lived nearby, and they all drove to the park.  On the way, Dino 
prayed that his brother was still alive. 
Upon arrival, Priscilla and Dino saw Vincent‘s car but were still unaware 
that Vincent was dead.  An ambulance arrived too, but no one seemed to be 
helping the person in the car — this was the first indication to Dino that his 
brother was dead.  It was only after Priscilla‘s father told her the person in the 
vehicle was Vincent that she knew her son had died.  
Timothy testified that he blamed himself for Vincent‘s death.  Timothy, 
who served in the military and was stationed in Nevada at the time, described how 
it was difficult to cope with knowing he had left his family in a place where 
Vincent was murdered.  The night of the incident, Timothy was awakened by a 
coworker saying that he had a phone call.  Because Priscilla was so distraught, 
47 
though, she was unable to speak, so her brother had to explain what had occurred.  
Timothy processed paperwork through the Red Cross and got permission from his 
superiors to leave, but he was only able to stay with his family in California for a 
few weeks.  It was difficult to leave so quickly, he told the jury. 
Priscilla explained that home life was happy before Vincent‘s death.  After 
the incident, though, she became very fearful and strict toward Dino.  Afraid that 
something similar to what happened to Vincent might happen to her other son, 
Priscilla would turn the ringer of the house phone off on the weekends so that 
Dino‘s friends could not reach him.  Although she stopped doing this at some 
point because it was not fair to Dino, she still lived in fear whenever Dino left the 
house.  Priscilla also explained that she was bothered by the way Vincent died and 
that she still had nightmares.  
Vincent‘s death had a significant impact on Dino, who said he became a 
loner.  Dino testified that it was difficult to accept his brother‘s death because of 
how he was killed; had Vincent died because of a car accident or a medical 
condition, it would have been different.  Dino could not accept how his brother 
was ―brutally murdered‖ and ―humiliated.‖  Dino went on to explain that when he 
could not sleep at night, he thought about his brother.  Dino said he did not pray 
anymore because God did not answer his prayers the night Vincent was murdered.  
The family moved away from the area four months after the incident, but 
for two years Priscilla traveled to visit the cemetery three or four times a week.  
Priscilla described how she saved all of Vincent‘s belongings, including the last 
bottle of soda she had shared with him.  She explained that the family no longer 
celebrated holidays, finding it meaningless to even put up a Christmas tree.  
48 
iii.  Michael Sterling 
Michael Sterling‘s sister-in-law, Dyanne Sterling, testified about the effect 
of Michael‘s death on her husband (i.e., Michael‘s brother) and son.  Michael was 
very close to his three brothers, who were all affected by Michael‘s death.  
Dyanne‘s son, who was six when Michael died, was also affected.  He cried 
frequently and missed his uncle. 
c.  Legal Standard 
In a capital case, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 
States Constitution permit introduction of evidence about the victim or the impact 
of the defendant‘s acts on the victim‘s friends and family.  (Payne v. Tennessee 
(1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825-827.)  Such victim impact evidence is only barred by the 
federal Constitution if it is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial 
fundamentally unfair.  (People v. Kopatz (2015) 61 Cal.4th 62, 90 (Kopatz).)  
Fundamental unfairness results when testimony ―invite[s] the jury to make its 
penalty determination on a purely irrational basis.‖  (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 
Cal.4th 574, 646.)  California law provides further that victim impact evidence is 
admissible under section 190.3, factor (a) as a ―circumstance of the crime.‖  
(People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835-836 (Edwards).)  Pursuant to 
factor (a), trial courts may allow emotional though relevant evidence, but not 
irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that elicits purely emotional or 
irrational responses from the jury.  (Id. at p. 836; see also People v. Pollock (2004) 
32 Cal.4th 1153, 1180.) 
We review the trial court‘s admission of victim impact evidence for abuse 
of discretion.  (People v. Trinh (2014) 59 Cal.4th 216, 245.) 
d.  Analysis 
On appeal, Simon raises three arguments.  First, the amount and nature of 
the victim impact evidence proffered below violated the due process clause of the 
49 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Second, the scope of 
victim impact evidence admissible under section 190.3, factor (a) should be 
limited to characteristics of the victims known or reasonably apparent to Simon at 
the time of the offense, and a more expansive interpretation renders the statute 
unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.  Third, the 
proposed victim impact evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Code 
section 352 because the risk of undue prejudice substantially outweighed the 
evidence‘s probative value.  
i.  Due Process 
Simon argues that the victim impact evidence presented below violated the 
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
because it was so unduly prejudicial that it rendered the penalty phase 
fundamentally unfair.  Simon contends the amount, and emotional nature, of the 
victim impact evidence was so inflammatory that the jury was led to make a 
―passionate, irrational, and purely subjective‖ decision based on the sorrow of the 
victims‘ families.  
But we need not address whether the amount or emotional nature of the 
victim impact evidence was unconstitutionally prejudicial.  Because Simon failed 
to properly object to the evidence, he forfeited the issue on appeal.  (See People v. 
Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 357 [concluding that ―defendant forfeited his claim 
because he failed to object to the testimony as exceeding the scope of section 
190.3, factor (a)‖].)  Although Simon raised many objections to the scope of 
permissible victim impact evidence prior to the penalty phase, the trial court 
reached few express rulings:  (1) testimony need not be limited to one witness per 
victim, (2) evidence of awards, artwork, achievements, and future plans were not 
50 
per se inadmissible, and (3) testimony and evidence need not be limited to the time 
surrounding the victims‘ deaths. 
The trial court also warned that the victim impact evidence should not be 
overly time consuming or overly emotional, but the court deferred making any 
specific rulings on this score pretrial.  It was therefore incumbent upon Simon to 
monitor the victim impact evidence on an ongoing basis during the penalty phase 
and raise any specific objections at that time.  (See People v. Romero and Self, 
supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 45-46 [finding victim impact evidence claim ―forfeited‖ 
because the ―motion in limine sought to broadly exclude all victim impact 
evidence on constitutional grounds, and did not specifically object to the 
admission of any particular witness‘s testimony anticipated in this case‖; instead, 
―it was incumbent on defendants to object if they believed the testimony actually 
presented was ‗excessive, improper, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial‘ ‖].) 
Even if Simon‘s claim were not forfeited, his argument fails on the merits 
because the victim impact evidence was not unduly prejudicial.  The family 
members‘ testimony here properly described the nature of their relationships with 
the victims, how they learned about the crimes, and how the crimes impacted their 
lives.  (See Kopatz, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 91 [finding no error where ―the family 
members‘ testimony properly explained the nature of their relationship with the 
victims, the immediate effects of the murders, and the residual and continuing 
impact of the murder on their lives‖]; People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 
1326-1327 (Chism) [finding no error where the family members‘ testimony ―was 
limited to explain the nature of their relationship with the victim, the immediate 
effects of the murder, and the residual and continuing impact of the murder on 
their lives‖].)  Furthermore, neither the number of witnesses — six — nor the 
amount of testimony — 59 pages‘ worth — was excessive.  (See, e.g., People v. 
Romero and Self, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 46 [no error where victim impact 
51 
testimony consisted of six witnesses spanning 96 pages of the reporter‘s 
transcript]; see also People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 464-467 [victim 
impact testimony of 13 witnesses]; People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 219-
221 [victim impact testimony of one victim‘s six family members].) 
Moreover, the content of the victim impact evidence was not so emotional 
that it became unduly prejudicial.  Simon is likely correct that the testimony 
painted a picture of ―the complete devastation of two families,‖ but that is to be 
expected when loved ones have been brutally murdered.  (See Kopatz, supra, 61 
Cal.4th at pp. 90-91 [explaining that the devastating effect of a capital crime on 
loved ones and the community is generally relevant and admissible]; Chism, 
supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1328 [―Evidence presented at the penalty phase need not be 
devoid of emotional content‖].)  The question is not simply whether victim impact 
evidence was emotional or demonstrated the devastating effect of the crime; 
rather, it is whether the testimony invited an irrational response from the jury.  
(See People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1030.)  Simon, however, provides no 
persuasive basis for us to conclude that the testimony presented in this case 
triggered such a response.  And our review of the record indicates the testimony 
was not so emotional that the trial court‘s failure to exclude it amounted to an 
abuse of discretion or rendered Simon‘s trial fundamentally unfair.  (See People v. 
Trinh, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 245-246.) 
ii.  Vague 
Simon argues that in Edwards, supra, 54 Cal.3d 787, we incorrectly held 
that victim impact evidence admitted under section 190.3, factor (a) may 
encompass facts unknown to the defendant at the time of the offense.  As support, 
Simon relies on Justice Kennard‘s concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. 
Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, which advanced such an interpretation.  (Id. at 
52 
pp. 262-263 (conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)  Simon also argues that 
interpreting section 190.3, factor (a) to include facts unknown or not reasonably 
apparent to him at the time of the offense renders the statute unconstitutionally 
vague.  
As Simon acknowledges, however, we have rejected these arguments ––
 and we have done so repeatedly –– since Edwards was decided.  (See, e.g., 
People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 877; People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 
Cal.4th 327, 364-365; People v. Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1057; 
People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 445, fn. 12.)  Simon offers no different or 
persuasive reason for us to revisit our prior rulings. 
iii.  Evidence Code Section 352 
Evidence Code section 352 provides:  ―The court in its discretion may 
exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 
probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) 
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of 
misleading the jury.‖  Simon contends that the victim impact evidence should have 
been excluded under this provision as substantially more prejudicial than 
probative.  What he argues is that the victim impact evidence was ―bound to 
intensify natural feelings of sympathy for the victims and their families and may 
have encouraged a desire for retribution against [Simon by] inviting an emotional 
and purely subjective response‖ because it was not limited to a single witness or to 
the time surrounding the victims‘ deaths, and it was ―emotionally charged and 
detailed.‖ 
We find no abuse of discretion here.  (See People v. Brady (2010) 50 
Cal.4th 547, 583 [reviewing cumulative effect of victim impact testimony under 
Evid. Code, § 352 for abuse of discretion].)  The victim impact evidence was not 
53 
unduly prejudicial because the testimony did not invite the jury to form an 
― ‗irrational, purely subjective response.‘ ‖  (Edwards, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 836.)  
The testimony here properly described how the murders impacted the witnesses‘ 
lives and did not paint a picture of the crimes as any more disturbing than the 
evidence already showed.  (See Kopatz, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 91; Chism, supra, 
58 Cal.4th at pp. 1326-1327.)  Nor was it improper for the family members to 
testify that the nature of the murders made the aftermath especially difficult for 
them.  (See People v. Montes, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 880 [finding no error where 
each of the ―relative[s] testified the unexpected and abrupt nature of [the victim‘s] 
death made it especially painful‖].)  As a result, Simon has failed to show the trial 
court abused its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the victim 
impact evidence was not substantially outweighed by any risk of undue prejudice. 
2.  Victim Impact Instructions 
Simon argues that the trial court failed to fulfill its sua sponte duty to 
properly instruct the jury as to victim impact evidence.  We find no error. 
a.  Background 
At the penalty phase, the trial court instructed jurors with a modified 
version of CALJIC No. 8.84.1:  ―You will now be instructed as to all of the law 
that applies to the penalty phase of this trial.  [¶] . . . [¶]  You must determine what 
the facts are from the evidence received during the trial unless you are instructed 
otherwise.  You must accept and follow the law that I state to you.  You may 
consider pity, sympathy, or mercy for the defendant in determining the penalty in 
this case which you find to be warranted under the circumstances.  [¶]  You must 
neither be influenced by bias or prejudice against the defendant, nor swayed by 
public opinion or public feeling.  Both the People and the defendant have the right 
to expect that you will consider all the evidence, follow the law, exercise your 
54 
discretion conscientiously, and reach a just verdict.‖  The trial court also instructed 
the jury with CALJIC No. 8.85. 
On appeal, Simon acknowledges that he ―did not request an instruction 
regarding the appropriate use of victim impact evidence.‖  He argues, however, 
that this failure did not absolve the trial court of its sua sponte duty to provide 
jurors with the guidance necessary for them to properly consider the victim impact 
evidence in the case.  According to Simon, the trial court‘s failure to give an 
appropriate limiting instruction violated his ―right to a decision by a rational and 
properly-instructed jury, his due process right to a fair trial, and his right to a fair 
and reliable capital penalty determination‖ under the federal and state 
constitutions. 
Simon contends that an appropriate instruction, derived from State v. 
Koskovich, (N.J. 2001) 776 A.2d 144, 177, and Commonwealth v. Means, (Pa. 
2001) 773 A.2d 143, 159, would have been:  ―Victim impact evidence is simply 
another method of informing you about the nature and circumstances of the crime 
in question.  You may consider this evidence in determining an appropriate 
punishment.  However, the law does not deem the life of one victim more valuable 
than another; rather, victim impact evidence shows that the victim, like the 
defendant, is a unique individual.  Your consideration must be limited to a rational 
inquiry into the culpability of the defendant, not an emotional response to the 
evidence.  Finally, a victim-impact witness is precluded from expressing an 
opinion on capital punishment and, therefore, jurors must draw no inference 
whatsoever by a witness‘s silence in that regard.‖ 
b.  Legal Standard 
In general, a defendant‘s failure to request a clarifying jury instruction 
forfeits any objection thereto.  (People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1273; 
55 
see also People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 171 [―defendant‘s failure to request 
a clarifying instruction waives that claim‖]; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 
1060, 1192 [―if defendant believed the instruction was unclear, he had the 
obligation to request clarifying language. . . .  [¶] . . . [¶]  Defendant‘s failure to 
request such clarifications at trial bars appellate review of the issue‖].) 
Nonetheless, a trial court has a duty to instruct sua sponte ―on those general 
principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts before the 
court and necessary for the jury‘s understanding of the case.‖  (People v. Price 
(1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 442.) 
c.  Analysis 
Simon concedes that he failed to request a clarifying jury instruction 
pertaining to victim impact evidence.  His claim, hence, is forfeited.  (See People 
v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1273.) 
Simon argues nevertheless that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to 
deliver an appropriate limiting instruction akin to the one proposed above.  We 
have rejected the same argument — and the exact same proposed instruction — 
before.  Indeed, we have repeatedly held that the trial court‘s use of jury 
instructions CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85 is sufficient to address a defendant‘s 
concerns about the proper use of victim impact evidence, and is consistent with his 
or her federal and state constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and a 
reliable penalty determination.  (See People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 
pp. 369-370; see also People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 198 [―We 
previously have rejected these same contentions‖]; People v. Bramit (2009) 46 
Cal.4th 1221, 1245 [―We recently considered this instruction and concluded it is 
neither required nor appropriate‖].) 
56 
As the jury here was instructed according to CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85, 
and Simon offers no persuasive reason to revisit our prior rulings, we see no error. 
3.  Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence 
Simon argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting 
irrelevant and highly prejudicial rebuttal evidence at the penalty phase.  We are 
not persuaded. 
a.  Background 
During the penalty phase, Simon presented expert witness testimony 
regarding his brain injuries, as well as testimony from his mother and relatives 
regarding his difficult childhood and their loving relationships with him.  Simon‘s 
family members testified that he was a good role model, a ―disciplined young 
person,‖ and ―quite a good kid.‖  His cousin Richardson testified that Simon was 
supportive and helpful when she was pregnant.  Simon‘s half sister also testified 
that Simon had given her good advice in the past, dissuading her from adopting a 
lifestyle of crime. 
At the close of the defense‘s case, the prosecution sought to introduce as 
rebuttal evidence a letter that Simon purportedly had written to his wife, Keisia, 
while incarcerated.  The letter contained threatening and explicit language directed 
at Keisia, calling her ―bitch‖ and ―roadkill‖ and warning that Simon would ―get‖ 
her.  The prosecution argued that it was admissible to counter the evidence Simon 
had introduced of his good character.  In particular, the letter was necessary to 
counter the defense evidence that Simon was ―a person of such character that he‘s 
important for his family members to maintain a relationship with him, maybe 
someone they can go to for advice.‖  Defense counsel objected to the letter‘s 
admission, stating:  ―I haven‘t gone into [Simon‘s] character trait for violence.‖  
The trial court overruled this objection, and the letter was read to the jury.  
57 
Simon now contends that the trial court committed reversible error in 
admitting this evidence.  This decision, he contends, violated his rights to have 
reasonable time limits placed on the admission of aggravating evidence, to receive 
due process and a fair trial, and to a reliable penalty determination.  Simon asserts 
that because he did not introduce any evidence relating to his character for 
nonviolence, evidence showing his character for violence constituted improper 
rebuttal. 
b.  Legal Standard  
When a defendant claims that his or her general character weighs in favor 
of mercy, a prosecutor is entitled to rebut that claim with evidence or argument 
offering a different account of the defendant‘s character.  (See People v. Loker 
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 709 [―When a defendant places his character at issue 
during the penalty phase, the prosecution is entitled to respond with character 
evidence of its own‖]; People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 791.)  If the 
defendant‘s good character evidence ―was not limited to any singular incident, 
personality trait, or aspect of his background‖ and ―painted an overall picture of an 
honest, intelligent, well-behaved, and sociable person incompatible with a violent 
or antisocial character,‖ the prosecution may introduce appropriate rebuttal 
evidence of the scope offered.  (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1072.)  
But that scope must still be specific, as we have rejected the idea that any evidence 
introduced for the defendant‘s good character will open the door to any and all bad 
character evidence from the prosecution.  (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 
at p. 792, fn. 24.) 
A trial court has broad discretion when determining the admissibility of 
rebuttal evidence, and we review a trial court‘s decision to admit such evidence for 
abuse of discretion.  (See People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 170 [―absent 
58 
palpable abuse, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court‘s exercise of that 
discretion‖].)   
c.  Analysis 
Admitting the letter here was not an abuse of discretion.  The vile, 
threatening language Simon employed in the letter to his wife undermined the 
defense‘s evidence that Simon was supportive of the women in his life and was 
someone they could turn to for sound advice.  The letter‘s menacing language — 
including repeated threats to Keisia‘s life — suggested that Simon possessed 
negative, aggressive attitudes toward women that stood in stark contrast to the 
testimony of his positive character attributes. 
Our decision in People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, is instructive.  
There, we affirmed the ability of the prosecutor to rebut evidence of the 
defendant‘s general character.  (Id. at p. 791.)  The prosecutor referred to an 
incident where the defendant had supposedly reached for a sawed-off shotgun in 
the back seat during a traffic stop.  (Id. at pp. 745, 791.)  We held that the incident 
was properly admitted, as it rebutted evidence that the defendant ―was a kind, 
loving, contributive member of his community, regarded with affection by 
neighbors and family.‖  (Id. at p. 791.)  Similarly, the defense evidence here 
sought to portray Simon as a kind individual who was supportive of the women in 
his life.  The letter refuted that portrayal. 
As the letter, though sharply worded, was relatively short in comparison to 
the good character evidence the defense had offered, and because it pertained 
directly to that evidence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 
allowing it. 
59 
4.  Reference to Other Murder Cases 
Simon claims that the trial court violated his rights to counsel and due 
process at the penalty phase by refusing to allow defense counsel to refer to other 
prominent murder cases during closing argument.  We disagree.  
a.  Background 
During closing argument, defense counsel urged the jury when considering 
whether Simon deserved the death penalty to ―put him in that category of 
convicted offenders of special circumstances murder, and then evaluate whether 
he‘s the worst in that — or among the worst in that category.‖  Using a pyramid 
graphic to illustrate the different categories of murder, defense counsel argued that 
only a narrow group of people liable for a special circumstances murder qualify 
for the death penalty.  Defense counsel then referred to the murderers Timothy 
McVeigh and Charles Manson as points of comparison for the jurors to consider 
when deciding if Simon deserved to die.  After hearing this remark, the prosecutor 
objected.  
During a discussion outside the jury‘s presence, the trial court stated, ―I 
think the comparison argument need be made to a point, up to the point to where 
we‘re talking about first degree murders are not available for death penalty,‖ but it 
expressed concerns with comparing first degree murders with special 
circumstances.  The prosecutor contended that defense counsel‘s argument that 
Simon was ―not as bad as‖ Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson was improper 
because the penalty phase requires an individual determination based on the 
defendant‘s own crime and background.  The prosecutor cited People v. Jenkins 
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1052 to support the proposition that under section 190.3, 
factor (a), a jury‘s consideration of the circumstances of the crime committed must 
be individualized, not comparative.  The court sustained the objection, agreeing 
with the prosecutor that ―[i]t comes down to an individual determination of guilt 
60 
and not a comparative balancing of whether or not [Simon‘s] crime is worse than 
Timothy McVeigh‘s.‖  The court did not, however, give a curative instruction to 
the jury.  
On appeal, Simon relies on People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 153 to 
show that during penalty phase closing argument counsel may discuss ―other cases 
and crimes in order to assist jurors in exercising sentencing discretion.‖  Simon 
suggests that trial courts may only limit the scope of defense counsel‘s closing 
argument when that argument would be overly time consuming.  Further, Simon 
contends that because the trial court here based its ruling on an incorrect 
interpretation of law, its limitation cannot be an appropriate exercise of discretion.  
Simon maintains that these alleged errors were prejudicial and ―skewed the 
weighing process in favor of the prosecution,‖ resulting in the denial of Simon‘s 
rights to due process, a fair trial, effective assistance of counsel, and a reliable 
penalty determination.  
b.  Legal Standard 
Criminal defendants enjoy a constitutional right to have counsel present 
closing argument to the trier of fact.  (People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 
110; see Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 858 [―There can be no doubt 
that closing argument for the defense is a basic element of the adversary 
factfinding process in a criminal trial‖].)  This right, however, is subject to certain 
limits.  (People v. Benavides, supra, at p. 110.)  A trial court may impose 
reasonable time limits and may ensure that argument does not ―stray unduly from 
the mark.‖  (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 854-855.)  Trial courts 
have broad discretion to control the duration and scope of closing arguments.  (See 
Herring v. New York, supra, at p. 862 [―In all these respects [the trial court] must 
have broad discretion‖].) 
61 
We review a trial court‘s decision to limit defense counsel closing 
argument for abuse of discretion.  (See People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at 
p. 1184.) 
c.  Analysis 
On numerous occasions, we have upheld a trial court‘s refusal to allow 
defense counsel to compare the defendant to specific well-known murderers or 
their crimes.  (See, e.g., People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1285-1287; 
People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 399-400; People v. Roybal (1998) 19 
Cal.4th 481, 528-529 (Roybal); People v. Marshall, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 853-
855.)  So long as the defendant is allowed to ―make his central point and to argue 
in general terms that there were ‗worse cases‘ than his,‖ the trial court‘s refusal is 
within its broad discretion.  (People v. Hughes, at p. 400.)  As relevant to the 
present case, we have held that a trial court‘s instruction that jurors may not 
compare the defendant‘s crime with any other crime does not constitute prejudicial 
error.  (Roybal, at p. 529.) 
As an initial matter, we disagree with Simon‘s suggestion that a trial court 
may only limit defense counsel‘s closing argument if it is overly time consuming.  
To the contrary, trial courts have ―broad discretion‖ to limit both the duration and 
scope of closing arguments.  (Herring v. New York, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 862.)  
Thus, the trial court‘s decision to preclude Simon‘s defense counsel from making 
specific references to well-known murderers need not be based on time 
considerations only. 
We also disagree with Simon‘s contention that the trial court improperly 
limited defense counsel during closing argument.  The trial court‘s refusal to allow 
defense counsel to compare Simon‘s crimes with the murders committed by the 
likes of Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson was well within its broad 
62 
discretion.  (See People v. Virgil, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1285-1287 [finding no 
abuse of discretion where trial court prohibited defense counsel from referencing 
prosecutions of O.J. Simpson and the Menendez brothers].) 
We upheld a similar limitation in People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053 
(Farley).  In Farley, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by prohibiting 
defense counsel from arguing at closing that the defendant‘s crimes were not as 
bad as other capital defendants.  (Id. at pp. 1129-1130.)  Defense counsel sought to 
refer to infamous murderers like Richard Ramirez, David Carpenter, and Ramon 
Salcido.  (Id. at p. 1130.)  But the trial court ―ruled that counsel would ‗not be 
permitted to engage in a comparative analysis of other death penalty cases or other 
murder cases . . . .‘ ‖  (Ibid.)  While the trial court barred defense counsel from 
mentioning specific cases, names, and penalties, it permitted counsel to argue 
― ‗this is not a child torture case or something like that.‘ ‖  (Ibid.)  We upheld the 
trial court‘s refusal, explaining that counsel was not precluded from making his 
central point that the ―defendant‘s murders were not ‗the worst of the worst.‘ ‖  
(Id. at p. 1131.)  The same is true here.  Although the trial court below did not 
allow defense counsel to mention specific names, defense counsel was still 
permitted to ask the jury to consider if Simon was among the worst in the category 
of convicted offenders of special-circumstances murder.  As in Farley, then, we 
find no constitutional violation. 
Nor would we likely have found such a violation had the trial court 
instructed the jury against comparing Simon‘s crimes to any others.  (See Roybal, 
supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 528-529.)  In Roybal, defense counsel sought to compare 
the defendant‘s case to the so-called ―Billionaire Boys Club‖ murders.  (Id. at 
p. 528.)  The trial court sustained an objection by the prosecutor and instructed 
jurors, ― ‗[Y]ou may not attempt to compare this crime, this murder, with any 
other murder.  In other words, you can‘t indulge in comparisons. . . .  You focus on 
63 
the facts associated with this case, with this defendant, with this crime.‘ ‖  (Ibid., 
italics added.)  We upheld the trial court‘s instruction, reasoning that the defendant 
could still argue his central point that the circumstances of his crime were 
mitigated by his background and emotional and mental disorders.  (Id. at p. 529.) 
Here, as in Roybal, Simon‘s defense counsel was not precluded from 
making his central argument that not every person (Simon included) found liable 
for special circumstances murder deserves the death penalty.  And even had the 
trial court admonished the jury with a curative instruction following defense 
counsel‘s comparative references — which the court did not do — Roybal 
demonstrates that such an instruction would likely have been proper.  (Roybal, 
supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 529.)  Thus, the trial court‘s decision here did not constitute 
an abuse of discretion. 
5.  Other Challenges to the Death Penalty Statute 
Simon raises numerous challenges to California‘s death penalty scheme 
that we have repeatedly considered and rejected.  He fails to persuade us to 
reconsider our previous holdings.  As a result, we again conclude: 
The death penalty is not unconstitutional for failing broadly to ―adequately 
narrow the class of murderers eligible for the death penalty.‖  (Bryant, Smith and 
Wheeler, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 468.)  Section 190.3, factor (a), which permits the 
jury to consider the circumstances of a defendant‘s crime in determining whether 
to impose the death penalty, does not license the jury to impose death in an 
arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and 
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  (People v. Boyce 
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 723 (Boyce); People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 
769.)  
64 
Nor is the death penalty unconstitutional ―for failing to require proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating factors exist, outweigh the mitigating 
factors, and render death the appropriate punishment.‖  (Boyce, supra, 59 Cal.4th 
at pp. 723-724.)  This conclusion is not altered by the United States Supreme 
Court‘s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and Ring v. 
Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584.  (Boyce, at p. 724.)  Neither does the federal 
Constitution require that the jury make written findings regarding aggravating 
factors.  (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 150.) 
Section 190.3 does not require California courts to undertake a comparison 
between the case at bar and other similar cases with respect to the relative 
proportionality of the sentence imposed.  Nor does the federal Constitution 
mandate such intercase proportionality review.  (People v. Contreras (2013) 58 
Cal.4th 123, 173.) 
During the penalty phase, the jury may consider a defendant‘s 
unadjudicated criminal activity and need not unanimously agree beyond a 
reasonable doubt that such criminal activity occurred.  (People v. Nelson, supra, 
51 Cal.4th at p. 226.) 
The use of adjectives such as ―extreme‖ and ―substantial‖ in the list of 
potential mitigating factors in section 190.3 does not unconstitutionally obstruct 
the jury‘s ability to consider mitigating evidence.  (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 
Cal.4th 911, 968; see Boyce, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 724.)  Moreover, the trial 
court ―need not instruct the jury that mitigating factors can be considered only in 
mitigation.‖  (Boyce, at p. 724.) 
California does not deny capital defendants equal protection of the law by 
providing certain procedural protections to noncapital defendants that are not 
afforded to capital defendants.  (People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 295.) 
65 
International norms and treaties do not render the death penalty 
unconstitutional as applied in this state.  (People v. Williams, supra, 58 Cal.4th at 
pp. 295-296.) 
Finally, the cumulative impact of these purported deficiencies in 
California‘s death penalty scheme does not render the penalty unconstitutional.  
We have rejected each of Simon‘s challenges to the death penalty statute, and 
these challenges are no more persuasive when considered together.  (See People v. 
Williams, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 296; People v. Garcia (2011) 52 Cal.4th 706, 
764-765.) 
66 
III.  CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment in its entirety. 
CUÉLLAR, J. 
 
WE CONCUR: 
 
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
CHIN, J. 
CORRIGAN, J. 
LIU, J. 
KRUGER, J. 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Simon 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal XXX 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S102166 
Date Filed: July 18, 2016 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Riverside 
Judge: Gordon R. Burkhart 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Kimberly J. Grove, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, 
Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens, Robin Derman and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys 
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Kimberly J. Grove 
P.O. Box 425 
Ligonier, PA  15658 
(724) 238-3497 
 
Eric A. Swenson 
Deputy Attorney General 
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 
San Diego, CA  92101 
(619) 645-2216