Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Introduction of unredacted letters written by defendant

Text: When defendant was imprisoned on two occasions prior to the killings in this case, he wrote letters, some to his mother and others to both his mother and his stepfather, Ardell. At trial, the People offered seven of those letters, and they were admitted into evidence without objection, along with a stipulation that defendant wrote them. Defendant also wrote numerous letters to Donna Guthrie after the killings in this case, while he was in jail awaiting trial on the murder charges. The People offered one of those letters into evidence and, again without objection, it was admitted. The seven letters detailed the deep distress and anger directed by defendant toward his mother and Ardell for their role in defendant's having been committed to prison, as well as his frustration with society  which, defendant repeatedly claimed, made him what he is. At the same time, the letters contained many expressions of defendant's love for his mother and Ardell, asked for their forgiveness, and expressed optimism and hope for his reformation. Viewed as a whole, the letters served the prosecution's purpose of documenting defendant's motive for the killings and his effort to silence Terry Guillory, but also served the interests of the defense, by humanizing defendant and showing him to be a fairly articulate, philosophical, and loving person at times. Defendant asserts these unredacted letters contained mostly irrelevant, inadmissible material that should never have been introduced to the jury. Defendant argues that although the letters sent to his mother and Ardell were offered to establish his motive for the killings, and the letter to Donna was offered to establish the plot to prevent Terry Guillory from testifying, numerous passages and aspects of the letters were irrelevant for those purposes and only could have harmed defendant  and hence the letters should have been redacted. Defendant cites various references contained in the letters to other crimes  including stealing Ardell's coins; fraudulent use of a Visa credit card; appropriating someone's lost $300 check to make a down payment on a Cadillac; alleged theft of a microwave oven; being locked up for various crimes since the age of 16 years or for 5 out of the past 8 years; and defendant's outlaw past and hundred dollar a day drug habit. Defendant also cites as irrelevant and prejudicial the following matters appearing in his letters: (i) a small swastika on one of the letters to his mother; (ii) references to defendant's death wish for his cousin, Gary Beach (who refused to perjure himself by testifying that defendant had not test-fired a .22-caliber gun); (iii) references to his girlfriend, Billie, having been featured in a smut film and also having fraudulently used Ardell's Visa credit card; (iv) defendant's alleged adoption of his father's cold moral code, [t]he heart is just a liquid pump; and (v) references to defendant's controversial political views that the jury might have inferred from defendant's discussion of property confiscation, interference with sexual freedoms, imprisonment for victimless crimes, society's responsibility for crime, the ills of divorce, the need for birth control, and exploitation of prison labor. Finally, regarding the letter to Donna Guthrie, defendant cites as irrelevant and prejudicial his promise to engage in oral sex with Donna, defendant's reference to his study of the law, and again the small swastika appearing in his signature. To the extent defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to excise the passages that defendant now characterizes as either irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, the claim cannot properly be raised on appeal; defense counsel made no such objection at trial and instead stated he had no objection to admission of the letters. Recognizing his trial counsel's failure to object, defendant asserts that counsel afforded him constitutionally deficient performance in this regard. As defendant concedes, much of the material in the letters  for example, his repeatedly professed love for his mother and Ardell, his asking for forgiveness, his promises to reform, and his philosophical musings served to humanize defendant and paint a more complete picture of the emotionally tumultuous relationship between him, his mother, and his stepfather, Ardell. Indeed, and apparently for that reason, defense counsel, during his closing guilt-phase argument to the jury, repeatedly invited the jury to read all of defendant's letters and criticized the prosecutor for failing to acknowledge one of the letters in which defendant expressed love for his mother. We therefore disagree with defendant's assertion that there could not have been any tactical explanation for trial counsel's failure to seek redaction of the letters. Reasonable counsel might well have concluded that in this case, in which defendant did not testify, allowing the jury to review the letters in their entirety, without certain passages blacked out (with redaction perhaps leading the jury to speculate that information especially harmful to defendant had been excised), conveyed to the jury an unvarnished and honest description that, on balance, might serve defendant well. Accordingly, because the appellate record does not preclude a satisfactory explanation for counsel's actions, we cannot find that counsel acted deficiently. ( Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 426, 152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859.) Instead, we conclude that defendant has failed to establish deficient performance under an objective standard of professional reasonableness. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 687-691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839.) Defendant insists that defense counsel at least should have sought to eliminate from the letter to Donna Guthrie his offer of oral sex, and from that letter (and one other letter to his mother) the use of small swastikas to decorate his name. It is not apparent that, had the requests been made, the trial court would have abused its discretion had it declined to redact in the manner defendant now claims should have been done. The People assert that the reference to oral sex in the letter to Donna Guthrie was relevant and probative in that it served to demonstrate the intimate relationship between defendant and Guthrie, and hence show why he would confide in her concerning the details of his plan to prevent the testimony of Terry Guillory. The People also assert that the swastikas set out in the letter to Donna Guthrie were relevant and probative in explaining and placing in perspective defendant's apparent hatred of Guillory (who, as noted, is of mixed race), and defendant's disparaging references to Guillory as the Oreo or cookie. But even assuming that in one or both of these limited respects trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to request excision of the references to oral sex and to the swastikas, defendant fails to establish prejudice, that is, a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome in the absence of the assertedly deficient performance. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 691-696, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 217-218, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839.) On the record before us, it is not reasonably probable that, had trial counsel prevailed upon the trial court to excise the reference to oral sex or the two small swastikas that adorned two of defendant's letters, the jury would have entertained a reasonable doubt concerning his guilt, or would have concluded that the special circumstance allegation was not true. Counsel's alleged failings in this regard were wholly insufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Finally, defendant asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring at closing argument in the guilt phase of the trial to various aspects of the letters. For example, the prosecutor pointed out that while defendant was making sexual overtures to Donna Guthrie, whom he involved in his plan to eliminate the testimony of Terry Guillory, defendant was promising marriage to Jacqueline Coghlan, whom he also had enlisted in his plan concerning Guillory. [27] The prosecutor concluded that the jury should, based upon these circumstances, infer that defendant was manipulative. The prosecutor also drew attention to defendant's use of the swastikas in two of his letters, noting that it was a universal sign of hatred. Referring to the passages showing defendant's anger at his mother and Ardell, the prosecutor commented that they suggested just about the kind of state of mind you need to shoot three people in the head, and then remarked: But if you are brought up  and people give you advice that you adopt  that the heart is nothing more than a liquid pump, then [killing three people is] not so tough; is it? Referring to passages in the letters concerning defendant's discussion of natural law and various societal failings, the prosecutor commented, It's all our fault, folks. Finally, referring to defendant's complaints concerning victimless crimes, the prosecutor interjected, Since when is grand theft [of Ardell's coins] a victimless crime? Defendant asserts that these comments disclose a pattern of prosecutorial intemperate behavior that deprived him of due process of law and a fair trial under the federal Constitution ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673 ( Hill )) or that, under state law, amounted to the ``use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.'' ( Ibid.; People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th 795, 841, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2.) Defendant asserts that the prosecutor's comments invited the jury to conclude that he was a bad person, a racial bigot, and a manipulator of women and the legal system, and therefore likely to have committed multiple murder. Defendant asserts that these comments violated accepted professional standards governing the conduct of prosecuting attorneys, and thus require reversal. As defendant concedes, he failed to object to the challenged comments or to request curative admonitions, and we repeatedly have held that such failure bars presentation of a misconduct claim on appeal. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468 ( Green ).) Contrary to defendant's view, we believe that a timely admonition, if appropriate, would have cured any perceived harm, and that a request for an admonition would not have been futile. But in any event, as a general matter the prosecutor's statements were within acceptable bounds. ( Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th 800, 819, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) Defendant was shown by the evidence to be a manipulator (who in large part blamed society for his failings), and it was clear as well that, at least at times, he was indeed quite hateful  an attribute that, under the circumstances, was highly relevant to defendant's motive and intent to kill. The challenged comments, viewed singly or cumulatively, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.)