Opinion ID: 1199719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense case-in-mitigation.

Text: The defense presented in mitigation the testimony of 12 witnesses, many of whom resided in the small community of Laytonville, where defendant and his wife had resided for 8 years. William Bailey, a longtime Laytonville resident and the owner of a lumber business, had known defendant for eight years. Bailey had employed defendant in a number of capacities in his lumber business, lumber supply mail order business, and gas station. Defendant always was reliable and could be trusted with the handling of large amounts of cash. In January 1982, Bailey was forced to lay off defendant due to a decline in the lumber industry. Bailey testified that, in addition to his regular employment, defendant was a regular participant in community events, frequently volunteering his time for local fund-raising activities. Defendant also pursued artistic endeavors, displaying his paintings at local fairs. Bailey further testified he considered defendant a personal friend. Bailey was aware defendant had served a prison term for murder and robbery, but, in light of defendant's commitment to the community and his personality, defendant always had been welcome in Bailey's home. John Weed was the owner, publisher, and editor of the Laytonville local newspaper. He testified he had worked with defendant approximately five months in the lumber business, describing him as a reliable and industrious worker. Defendant often volunteered his time for community activities and, in Weed's opinion, was an asset to the community. Weed had been aware of defendant's criminal history, which had not deterred him from welcoming defendant into his home. Weed also was familiar with defendant's artwork which, in Weed's opinion, was of high quality. Another Laytonville resident testified he had known defendant for several years and considered him a close friend. After seeing defendant's artwork, he helped defendant sell some of his paintings in Los Angeles. Other residents described defendant as a member of the community whom they respected and trusted. He volunteered his time to the school district, working on a weekly basis to help fourth graders with art projects. A kindergarten teacher testified that defendant was gentle, kind, and had a knack with children. Two correctional department guards who worked at the facility where defendant had been incarcerated testified that he had been a good inmate and never a discipline problem. Rita Neely, defendant's wife, testified that during their eight years of marriage, defendant had been a good husband and father to her five children and had participated actively in their upbringing. After defendant was laid off from work in January 1982, he began selling marijuana, an activity that had distressed her. Defendant's stepson, a member of the Coast Guard, testified that he considered defendant a close friend and a loving father to his younger siblings. Brief portions of Handley's preliminary hearing testimony (that were inconsistent with the physical evidence) were read into the record, tending to impeach the credibility of Handley's testimony at that hearing. During their penalty phase deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court, inquiring: On this page the instructions state, `If you conclude that the aggravating circumstances ---- you shall impose a sentence of death.' Does this mean we have to, or see pg 22 [the instructions concerning sympathy and mercy]. The jury attached another note to page 22 of the instructions, inquiring: May we show mercy and give life without possibility even though we feel aggravating outweighs mitigating? In response to these notes, over defense counsel's unsuccessful objection, the trial court instructed the jury as set forth in the margin below. [7] After receiving this instruction, the jury resumed its deliberations and returned a verdict imposing the punishment of death.