Opinion ID: 2639434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Materiality of the False Evidence

Text: Although the referee found that Joanna testified truthfully at trial that she saw petitioner chase and stab Denise, he found that Joanna falsely testified that a person named Joe drove her back to Placerville after the stabbing. The referee also found that Darlene falsely testified at trial that petitioner confessed to her that he committed the murders, that she saw Denise get into petitioner's car the night Denise was murdered, and that she found Debbie's key chain in petitioner's car a day or two after Debbie disappeared.
Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (b)(1) provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted if [f]alse evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at any hearing or trial relating to his incarceration.... False evidence is `substantially material or probative' if it is `of such significance that it may have affected the outcome,' in the sense that 'with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome....' [Citation.] In other words, false evidence passes the indicated threshold if there is a `reasonable probability' that, had it not been introduced, the result would have been different. ( In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 546, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527.) The requisite 'reasonable probability' is determined objectively, is dependent on the totality of the relevant circumstances, and must undermine[ ] the reviewing court's confidence in the outcome. ( Ibid. )
In Sassounian, while we acknowledged that, in some cases, a confession can provide the prosecution with an `evidentiary bombshell which shatters the defense,' its effect in a given case depends on whether a jury would have found it believable. ( In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 548, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527; quoting People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 731, 44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665.) Because the Sassounian informant had been extensively impeached at trial, we believed it was 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.) We therefore applied the reasonable probability test and determined that had the confession not been introduced, the result would have been the same. We concluded that there was no reasonable probability that admission of the confession could have affected the outcome because [s]eparate and apart from the [confession] there was overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction. ( In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 548, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527.) We proceed to the same analysis here.
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.)
The false testimony introduced at petitioner's jury trial does not meet the reasonable probability test set forth in Sassounian. Not only was Darlene's testimony of petitioner's supposed confession highly suspect, as detailed above, but there was overwhelming evidence at trial, separate and apart from the items of false evidence, that amply supported the jury's verdict. In other words, had such false evidence not been introduced, it is reasonably probable the result would have been the same.
The murders of Lynda, Denise, and Debbie must not be viewed in isolation because there are many common threads that point to the fact that one person killed these three girls. For example, all three victims were teenagers who lived in Placerville and Debbie and Denise lived in the same foster home. All three victims knew each other and hung out in downtown Placerville. All three victims were killed in the El Dorado National Forest within a two-month period in the late spring and summer of 1984 and the bodies of Denise and Lynda (who were murdered just 17 days apart) were found within a quarter-mile of each other. The bodies of all three victims were found unburied and naked, and their clothes were found nearby, not strewn about, but together. Because no blood was found on the victims' clothes, it can be reasonably inferred that all three were murdered while they were naked. These commonalities lead to the conclusion that the murders were committed by one person and the evidence presented at trial conclusively showed that that person was petitioner.
Evidence of petitioner's incriminating statements was admitted at trial. Several teenage girls testified that before Denise's murder, petitioner had contemptuously referred to Denise, Darlene, and Lynda as sluts. Darlene's mother testified that in September 1984 (after Denise's and Debbie's murders), petitioner volunteered that Denise and Debbie were whores and tramps and they should have been killed. Also, about that same time after the murders, Patricia Kelly confided in petitioner that she suspected her husband was seeing another woman. Petitioner replied, Whores like that should be eliminated the very same term he had used in referring to the victims. In November 1984, during a conversation about the murders of the three victims, petitioner said to Joe and Linda Crespin, If I had stabbed the three girls would I be sitting here talking to you now? Significantly, petitioner referred to the cause of death as stabbing, even though none of the media accounts at the time had identified stabbing as the cause of death.
As discussed above, we adopt the referee's finding that Joanna truthfully testified at petitioner's jury trial that she witnessed petitioner murder Denise. Our finding is based on the fact that Joanna offered information at trial that could have only been known by a person who was present when Denise was murdered. For example, on the first trip to the murder location with sheriffs deputies and Dr. Dougherty, a dark and snowy night with poor visibility, Joanna located Ferrari Mill Road, which was essentially an unmarked dirt road. Once on that dirt road, she originally directed the sheriffs deputies onto the wrong road at the Y fork, but then corrected herself. Once on the correct road, as the car went up a hill with ruts in it, Joanna stated that she remembered that hill. Once at Four Corners, she told them to stop. On the second trip to the murder location, Joanna recognized a tree stump marked with yellow paint just past Four Corners. Evidence subsequently was admitted to show that the stump had been painted yellow prior to the murder. She then pointed down a road at Four Corners and said that the night of Denise's murder we went further down that road. This was the road off of which Denise's remains were located. The two newspaper articles that Joanna later claimed in her posttrial recantation to have read prior to these trips did not disclose which direction to take at the Ferrari Mill Road Y fork, did not describe the hill with ruts in it, and did not mention that the bodies were found at Four Corners, all of which Joanna knew when she led the sheriffs deputies to the site of Denise's murder. [7] On the third trip to the murder location (with Sergeant Wilson on June 22, 1985), which was the first time Joanna led sheriffs deputies down the road off of which Denise's remains were located, she accurately predicted they would go over a small rise and drop down off this rise and [that] it would level out. She then told Sergeant Wilson to stop the car and proclaimed: That's where [petitioner's] car was parked the night Denise was killed. This spot was within 75 yards of the murder scene. As noted, only a person was present when Denise was murdered would possess such specific knowledge. [8] Joanna's trial testimony was corroborated in several critical respects. Joanna testified at trial that there was a trickle of water in the area where she vomited. Just prior to the murder, it rained for four consecutive days. The People's expert testified that, given the rainfall, he would expect shallow puddles in the area where Denise was murdered on June 12. Joanna testified at trial, for the first time on cross-examination, that there was a full moon the evening of June 12. In fact, evidence later admitted at trial showed it was one night before a full moon. [9] Joanna also testified at trial that Denise was naked, running with her hands behind her back, when petitioner stabbed her. Denise's clothes were found apart from her body, corroborating Joanna's testimony that Denise was naked; petitioner kept a knife above his car's sun visor and showed it to Darlene on the night of Denise's murder, saying [t]onight is going to be a good night for business, corroborating Joanna's testimony that Denise was stabbed; and petitioner kept handcuffs in his car, corroborating Joanna's testimony that Denise was running with her hands behind her back. This corroborating evidence reinforces the conclusion that Joanna witnessed petitioner murder Denise. [10] Finally, although there was only media speculation about the cause of death, Joanna knew that petitioner had stabbed Deniseshe told law enforcement so in early November 1984. Also, in early November 1984, petitioner said to Joe and Linda Crespin, If I had stabbed the three girls would I be sitting here talking to you now? Those corroborative statements, made independently of each other and at about the same time, strongly support the referee's finding that Joanna's eyewitness testimony was reliable.
Several witnesses testified that petitioner was the last person to be seen with Lynda, who stated she would be right back as she left with petitioner. And despite the testimony from several witnesses that petitioner knew Lynda, petitioner, on July 5, 1984, told Donald Burrill, Lynda's father, that he did not know Lynda and even denied being in town the evening she disappeared. When El Dorado Sheriffs deputy Detective William White interviewed petitioner two weeks later, petitioner changed his story and said he might have been with Lynda that night. Additionally, the day after Lynda disappeared, Linda Crespin observed him with a scratch on his forehead to which he applied medicine. Petitioner also admitted, the day after Lynda's disappearance, that he had been seeing or dating a girl named Lynda, but stated that girls like that should be eliminated. Finally, Lynda and Denise were murdered just 17 days apart, in the same manner, and at the same location, Ferrari Mill Road. Petitioner was very familiar with Ferrari Mill Road, having camped there several times.
At trial, witnesses offered the following testimony. Petitioner said Debbie was turning out real bad and had threatened Debbie several days before her disappearance. Referring to Debbie, petitioner said shortly before her disappearance You won't have to worry about her much longer. On the night Debbie disappeared, petitioner's car was observed driving by Benham Park real slow and the driver was seen looking through the park at the same time Debbie was at the park attending a party for a friend. Darlene confirmed that she and petitioner were sitting on a picnic bench in the park that evening for about 15 minutes, and she saw Debbie in the park. Yet, four days after Debbie disappeared, petitioner denied seeing Debbie in Benham Park that night. Darlene further stated that, during that evening, petitioner pulled a knife from his car's sun visor and put it in his pants, saying he had to take care of business. Petitioner took Darlene back to the foster home unusually early. Debbie walked home alone after the party because her friends left her after walking her just some of the way home. Finally, as in the case of Lynda and Denise, petitioner was familiar with the area where Debbie's body was found, Camp Creek on North South Road, as he camped and cut wood there on several occasions.
Based on the foregoing evidence, it cannot be said that any of the false statements, viewed separately or together, were substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. It is not reasonably probable, therefore, that the result of the trial, had the jury not heard the false statements, would have been different. Our confidence that the jury reached the proper verdict is therefore not undermined. ( In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 546, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527.)