Opinion ID: 1215322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Penalty Phase Evidence The Arson for Hire

Text: At defendant's first penalty trial, and again at the penalty retrial, the prosecution introduced aggravating evidence of defendant's prior criminal activity under former section 190.3, factor (b). The evidence concerned defendant's involvement in an arson for hire of the Chicken Ranch brothel in Nevada. As described in our former opinion, the evidence included a telegram containing the message, `You have a job over here' sent to defendant by Bill Martin [owner of a Nevada brothel], together with a $50 money order. There was evidence tending to show that defendant had been in Nevada, staying with Bill Martin, in June 1978. Further evidence indicated that Martin ... was engaged in a conspiracy with others either to extort money from [Walter Plankington,] the owner of the Chicken Ranch or to close [that brothel]. An employee of the Chicken Ranch brothel testified that on the night of June 10, 1978, a man ran into the brothel and threw something inside. The building immediately burst into flames.... The employee first testified that she had not seen the man's face and could not identify him, but subsequently testified the man had a long nose and resembled defendant. Ross testified that defendant left for Las Vegas in April or May of 1978. Meeting again with her in late May or June in a motel in Fresno, he showed her approximately $700, and said he had `burnt down a whorehouse' called `the Chicken Ranch.' ( Easley, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 868.) Substantially the same evidence as to the arson was presented at defendant's second penalty trial. At the second trial, as at the first, Plankington was called to testify for the prosecution, and he gave important prosecution testimony linking defendant to Martin. He testified he saw Martin with someone whom he believed was defendant at a Nevada bar in late May or early June 1978. [3] Additional events arising from the arson had, however, transpired between the first and second trials. Because these events are relevant to defendant's argument that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, they are discussed in more detail in section II.A. below.