Opinion ID: 2639434
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Darlene's Credibility Open to Question

Text: We determine, as a threshold matter, whether it is open to question whether the jury found the confession believable. We answer that question in the affirmative. In general, Darlene's credibility at trial was doubtful. She made several inconsistent statements during her direct testimony, and the record indicates that the prosecutor asked Darlene a substantial number of leading questions that required a simple yes or no answer. In addition, Darlene was extensively impeached on cross-examination. As the referee colloquially noted, Darlene's testimony was torn to pieces. For example, on direct examination, Darlene testified that petitioner had nothing to do with Debbie. But in response to the very next question, she stated petitioner would drive Debbie in his car. Immediately thereafter, she spoke about an incident that occurred on the night she and Debbie went to the convalescent hospital to visit Nona Chapman's husband. She testified that, while at the hospital, she tried to hide from Debbie; she then denied she tried to hide from Debbie; when asked again, she reversed course once more and said she tried to hide from Debbie. Darlene testified at trial that she recalled being at the Exxon station with petitioner and finding the unicorn key chain the day after Debbie disappeared. Initially, however, Darlene stated that the unicorn key chain belonged to Denise. When the prosecutor posed the question to her again, Darlene repeated that the key chain belonged to Denise. On the third try, she said the key chain belonged to Debbie. But thereafter, she again referred to the key chain as Denise's and again, at the prosecutor's prompting, changed her testimony to say that it was Debbie's key chain. On cross-examination, Darlene was still uncertain, stating that she put the unicorn key chain back in Denise'sDebbie's drawer. Darlene's account of the confession was doubtful on its face. Darlene stated, as to Denise, that petitioner told her [h]e had strangled her, stabbed her and [h]ad sexual intercourse with her. As to Lynda, Darlene stated in identical language that petitioner told her [h]e had strangled her, stabbed her and had sexual intercourse with her. As to Debbie, she echoed that petitioner told her he had strangled her, stabbed her and had sexual intercourse with her. She added that, as to all three victims, petitioner told her [h]e had handcuffed their hands and tied their feet. Darlene's claim that petitioner told her the exact same thing as to all three victims is dubious. Her testimony also suggested that petitioner had sex with the girls after they were dead. Indeed, the trial court commented at sidebar that the jury could only conclude that he killed [the victims] before he had intercourse with them. Darlene offered no further details about the confession other than to say I don't know when asked if petitioner had sex with the victims before or after he killed them. The prosecutor, significantly, asked no further questions about the confession, such as whether petitioner told Darlene where the murders took place, or how he got Lynda and Debbie into his vehicle. This utter lack of detail also makes the confession dubious. Darlene's account of the confession also contained what appeared to be factual inaccuracies. On cross-examination, Darlene stated that petitioner told her Denise was running down a road, but also agreed that petitioner said he tied her feet. Defense counsel then asked her if petitioner tied Denise's feet before she started running. Darlene changed her story and said, No, he didn't have time to tie up her feet. Darlene stated that petitioner told her he stabbed Denise in the stomach, but later stated petitioner told her he stabbed Denise in the chest. Darlene also stated that petitioner said he killed Denise and Lynda on North South Road. In fact, both girls were killed 12 miles away, on Ferrari Mill Road. We conclude, therefore, that it is open to question whether the jury found the confession believable. ( In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 548, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527.)