Title: P. v. Capers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S146939M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: October 24, 2019

1 
Filed 10/23/19 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  
CALIFORNIA 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
v. 
LEE SAMUEL CAPERS, 
Defendant and Appellant. 
 
S146939 
 
San Bernardino County Superior Court 
FBA06284 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR 
REHEARING 
THE COURT: 
The opinion in this matter filed on August, 8, 2019 and appearing 
at 7 Cal.5th 989, is modified as follows: 
1. 
In the first paragraph on page 1006, delete the third full 
sentence reading, “Another letter was sent to Griego in October 2003, in 
which Renteria again retracted her statements implicating both men, 
claiming she was on drugs when she made them, ‘not in [her] right 
state of mind,’ and the statements were not true.”  As modified, the 
sentence now reads:   
In an interview with Griego in October 2003, Renteria again 
retracted her statements implicating both men, claiming she was 
on drugs when she made them, “not in [her] right state of mind,” 
and the statements were not true. 
 
 
2 
2. 
In at the first paragraph on page 1010, delete the sentence 
reading, “Renteria’s decision not to testify, upheld by the court, did not 
deny defendant the right to present a defense.”  As modified, the 
sentence now reads:   
Renteria’s decision not to testify, upheld by the court, did not 
deny defendant the right to present a defense nor his Eighth 
Amendment right to have the jury hear all mitigating evidence at 
the penalty phase. 
3. 
In the first full paragraph on page 1012, delete the fourth 
sentence reading, “Even though the statute of limitations had passed on 
Renteria’s initial alleged lie to Detective Griego in 1999, it had not 
passed when she allegedly lied in her second retraction letter of 2003.”  
As modified, the sentence now reads:  
Even though the statute of limitations had passed on Renteria’s 
initial alleged lie to Detective Griego in 1999, it had not passed 
when she allegedly lied in her second retraction of 2003. 
 
These modifications do not affect the judgment. 
 
The petition for rehearing is denied.