Opinion ID: 2588509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Defendant's Parole Status

Text: In his opening statement defendant explained his possession of the gun by asserting that he was transporting the weapon in exchange for payment. The prosecutor thus wished to cast doubt upon that explanation by informing the jury that defendant's status as a parolee meant that his mere possession of the weapon could prompt his return to prison. As the trial court observed, the relevance of the parole status was not its tendency to undermine the credibility of the witness but the credibility of the testimony. An analogous use of evidence might occur if a defendant were charged with theft and his defense at trial was that he had purchased the liquor found in his possession. The People might wish to introduce the defendant's driver's license that revealed he was 16 years old, not because there is anything intrinsically culpable about being 16 years old but because it would tend to undermine his claim that he purchased the liquor. Similarly, the evidence of defendant's parole status was relevant as to the likelihood that defendant would transport someone else's gun and thereby risk returning to prison. Defendant's own testimony confirmed the probative nature of his parole status. When [the police] came up to me, all I thought was ex-felon with a gun, five years. Furthermore, there was minimal prejudice attached to the evidence, in light of the nature of the charged crimes and the prior felony convictions properly admitted. We therefore conclude the trial court properly allowed the prosecution to elicit defendant's parole status. Finally, in light of the overwhelming strength of the People's case, any possible error regarding the admission of either the prior convictions or defendant's parole status was surely harmless. 4. Sufficiency of Evidence Supporting the Conviction for the First Degree Murder of Daniel McDermott Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction for the first degree murder of Daniel McDermott. We conclude sufficient evidence supports the conviction, on either a premeditation or a felony-murder basis. (§ 189.) In determining the sufficiency of the evidence proving premeditation and deliberation, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the People to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 368, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769 ( Silva ).) Evidence concerning planning, motive, and manner of killing are pertinent to this determination, but these factors are not exclusive nor are they invariably determinative. ( Ibid. ) The shooting of Daniel McDermott manifested all three factors. Defendant ordered Robin Menefee out of the taxi, which supports the inference that he did so to remove her from the scene before he killed. Moreover, if he brought a gun rather than money with which to pay for the taxi ride, it supports the inference that he planned a violent encounter with McDermott. ( People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 240, 253 Cal.Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906; People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 87, 241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127 ( Miranda) . ) Defendant was found with seven $1 bills, whereas McDermott was found with no bills (nor was any money found in the car), which tends to show a robbery motive. Finally, the manner of the killing, a close-range shooting without any provocation (defendant discussed the baseball game with McDermott before shooting him) or evidence of struggle, likewise demonstrates premeditation and deliberation. ( People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 956, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574; People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 348, 233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802.) Substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the murder of Daniel McDermott was premeditated. There was also circumstantial evidence supporting the finding that defendant murdered McDermott in the commission of a robbery or attempted robbery. Defendant was found with seven $1 bills and change. The People presented evidence that it was McDermott's habit to bring several $1 bills to work, with which he could make change. Defendant was found with seven $1 bills; no paper money was found on McDermott's person or in his car. Moreover, although defendant and Menefee had no money when they entered the taxi, they were able to buy groceries later that evening. The People also showed that prior to picking up defendant on 13th Street and Broadway, McDermott was dispatched to Berkeley, and he did not inform the dispatcher that the passenger had failed to show up, which he would have done had the fare been a no-show. Defendant asserts the evidence that he took property from McDermott is speculative, as [n]o witness saw any money being taken from Mr. McDermott. However, circumstantial evidence may support a first degree robbery-murder finding, or a robbery-murder special circumstance. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 367, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.) In Lewis, we affirmed a robbery-based special-circumstance finding. Defendant admitted he had seen Simms keep money in her bra. Physical evidence also showed that the top of Simms's blouse was ripped open, revealing her brassiere containing a folded $20 bill, and that buttons that had come from Simms's blouse lay near her body. There was evidence that Simms had recently cashed a paycheck and that she normally set aside money for rent from the paycheck and used the rest to purchase crack. Based on these facts, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that defendant robbed Simms. ( Ibid. ) We also approved the admission of habit evidence in People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146, where the defendant was found in possession of an envelope containing over $200 in cash, and evidence established it was the victim's habit to store money in envelopes to earmark it for special purchases. ( Id. at pp. 1178-1180, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.) As in the instant case, no witness observed the defendant take money from the victim. But we nonetheless held the jury could infer that defendant had the opportunity to steal (he leaned into the victim's car), did steal (he was found in possession of an envelope with money), and killed his victim to accomplish his crime. ( Id. at p. 1183, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.) The same analysis obtains here. Finally, even if defendant had been found without any money on his person, the jury could rationally have concluded he shot Mr. McDermott in an attempt to obtain money. (See Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 368-370, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769.) We therefore reject defendant's evidentiary challenge to his conviction for the first degree murder of Daniel McDermott. 5. Sufficiency of Evidence on the Other Counts and the Multiple-Murder Special Circumstance Defendant challenges the validity of his other convictions. He contends there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation regarding the other three counts. Defendant also asserts the jury improperly relied on a felony-murder theory in convicting him of the first degree murder of Peter Baeza. Additionally, he contends the absence of a proper first degree murder conviction invalidates the multiple-murder special-circumstance finding. We reject all these claims.