Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marietta Loker

Text: The prosecutor first asked to use the Gaughan report after the testimony of defendant's mother, Marietta Loker. Defense counsel asked about a time when defendant was shooting at bottles. Marietta explained that this happened in the backyard during her divorce from defendant's father. Defendant told her, If I don't do this I'm liable to shoot my dad. Marietta also said that defendant had totally changed when he came back from a visit to Tulsa a few months before the California murders. In Tulsa, defendant could not meet the Daulton image of being rough and tough and ready to fight in a minute. A couple of months before the murders, he was drinking six to 12 cans of beer a night. He totally changed when he drank, becoming irritable and depressed. At a bench conference, the prosecutor sought permission to counter the testimony that defendant became a totally changed person shortly before the crimes with defendant's statements in the Gaughan report, which described a pattern of criminal behavior and ideation that began much earlier. It was agreed that the issue would be addressed later. On redirect, defense counsel asked Marietta if as a teenager [defendant] would . . . get involved in bad things or violence. She responded, That's the reason why I was so shocked when this happened, because [defendant] was kind ofhe was tender; his sister could kind of beat him up. Defense counsel then asked a series of questions establishing that things went downhill after the Lokers' divorce when defendant was 17. Defendant became violent and talked about killing. However, even before then he had chronic emotional problems. At a hearing out of the jury's presence, the prosecutor renewed his argument. He noted Marietta's testimony that defendant was tender, and asked to use the Gaughan report to show that defendant's criminal behavior began when he was around 13 and escalated thereafter. The prosecutor asked the court how much detail he could go into, and whether he would be allowed to call Dr. Gaughan as a witness. Defense counsel argued that Marietta's testimony was consistent with the Gaughan report, because the serious incidents reflected in the report occurred after defendant was 17, and the most serious were within six months of the charged offenses. The court decided that Marietta's testimony about defendant's tenderness and minor incidents of shooting at bottles had created an impression the prosecutor was entitled to counter with some of the material in the report. The court ruled that the prosecutor could not mention an incident in which defendant described shooting at someone in a vehicle. However, defendant's preoccupation with violence and pornography, his desire to be a criminal, and his stalking activity, were permissible areas of examination. The court told the prosecutor to ask about these matters very generally, without going into a lot of specific details. Defense counsel said, I'll stipulate to that, and the prosecutor agreed. The court suggested that the better way to discuss specific incidents would be to put Dr. Gaughan himself on the stand. On cross-examination, Marietta reaffirmed that she had been shocked about defendant's crimes, saying, I never dreamed my son could ever be capable of doing what he did. The prosecutor asked her to read the Gaughan report, without saying anything out loud to the jury. She was given time to read the report while another witness testified. Before her cross-examination resumed, another hearing was held out of the presence of the jury, at which it was established that Marietta knew only about a shoplifting incident and the Peeping Tom incident, and that the prosecutor would not question her on things she did not know about. He explained that he did not want to ask Marietta about things that would be painful to her, and the court agreed, noting that the incidents might come in later and you could tie that together in argument, that there were these other things going on that she didn't know about. Defense counsel made a continuing objection to bringing in Dr. Gaughan's report in bits, pieces, or any other way. The court noted this broad objection, adding that counsel could raise further objections in any particular instance or context. The court also opened up a further area for the prosecutor to explore. Because there was testimony that defendant's father had a reputation as a thief, the court said the prosecutor could ask Marietta if she was aware of the incidents of theft defendant had related to Dr. Gaughan. In front of the jury, Marietta confirmed that she was aware of a window-peeking incident and a petty theft six months before the crimes in this case, but not any of the other material in the Gaughan report. She said, I did not know that, the seriousness of all of that at all. The cross-examination of Marietta was proper. Because defense counsel stipulated to presenting her with no specific instances of misconduct, defendant cannot now complain about that aspect of the cross-examination. Moreover, Marietta's portrayal of defendant as a tender child who changed dramatically shortly before committing his crimes permitted the prosecutor to bring up conflicting aspects of his character. The prosecutor did not characterize the contents of the report in his questioning; Marietta spontaneously mentioned the seriousness of all of that. Defendant complains that her testimony about his father's reputation for stealing should not have opened the door to questions about his own shoplifting. However, defense counsel established that Roger Loker's skill as a thief became a family story that was passed along to defendant. In any event, the shoplifting incident was not emphasized, but merely presented as one part of defendant's history that Marietta knew about.