Opinion ID: 2517672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Boyd Had a Motive to Commit the Murders

Text: Petitioner alleges that at the time of the murders, Boyd was a drug user who habitually used alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine and possibly phencyclidine (PCP), and that he was unemployed and in constant need of money. Petitioner contends this evidence provides Boyd with a motive for the killings. For example, Harvey's son testified Boyd was his stepfather, in 1981 and that he had gotten to know Boyd fairly well. He said that people often came to speak with his mother about Boyd, complaining that Boyd was constantly] badgering [them] for money to buy the drugs. Michael Small testified that in 1981, Boyd was often under the influence. According to Small: [Boyd] wasn't trying to hide his drug use in any way. Over back by the pool he would smoke Sherm [i.e., PCP-laced cigarettes] or marijuana. According to Small, Boyd always had Southern Comfort with him, and if he didn't he was going to get a bottle. So that was his recreation. Asked if this occurred every day, occasionally or just on weekends, Small replied: All the time. James Moss confirmed that Boyd drank on a daily basis and that he appeared to be addicted to heroin, saving, he was on that real bad. Sandra Harris Moss testified Boyd did not work, but [h]ung around, loafed around all day, drinking and smoking marijuana and Sherm cigarettes. Although she never saw Boyd inject heroin, she saw needle marks on his arms. James Moss testified that after the murders, he overheard Boyd say he was angry and that he needed his part of the money to get the drugs that he wanted and needed. The referee concluded [t]he evidence at the hearing showed that Boyd had a motive for the killings: i.e., to obtain money to support his drug habit. Moreover, the referee found that Boyd's testimony that he did not use ... cocaine, heroin or PCP during the time he lived at the Vose Street apartments was false and that the evidence confirmed that Boyd's drug habit was his motive for participating in the conspiracy[, namely] that, after the killings, Boyd was heard to say that he wanted to be paid for his part in the killings soon so that he could buy drugs. Without specifically denying the allegations regarding Boyd's drug addiction and impecunious circumstances, respondent denies that these alleged facts provide Boyd with any greater motive for the double murder than any other poor, unemployed person. Although respondent is correct that the presence of a motive does not prove Boyd was the killer, this evidence, combined with the other evidence, could have convinced a reasonable jury to entertain some doubt as to the scope of petitioner's involvement in the murders. Moreover, James Moss's testimony ties Boyd's drug addiction to his need for money. Respondent also takes exception to the referee's findings, arguing the evidence showing Boyd's drug and alcohol habits was inadmissible evidence of his bad character. Respondent did not object on this ground at the hearing and has thus forfeited the claim for this proceeding. Assuming the issue was preserved, the evidence was admissible to challenge Boyd's credibility (Evid.Code, § 1101, subd. (c)), as he testified he did not use drugs or alcohol and was not part of the conspiracy. (See discussion, ante, at pt. IV.B.1.g.) Respondent's further argument that no evidence supports the referee's finding that Boyd was heard to say he wanted to be paid for his part in the killings is meritless; James Moss's testimony, read in context, adequately supports the referee's finding. We thus overrule respondent's exceptions. As the referee's conclusions regarding Boyd's motive for the slayings are supported by substantial evidence (i.e., the testimony of Harvey's son, Michael Small, James Moss and Sandra Harris Moss), we adopt them.