She indicated she could never vote to impose the penalty, regardless of the evidence, and repeated similar sentiments when the court`s questioning continued. The jury was given the standard instruction on aggravating and mitigating factors under CALJIC No. 8.85 and its requirement that the jury, in determining penalty, shall be guided by and shall consider all of the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial of this case. Defendant claims that even if the evidence was insufficient to require a suspension of the criminal proceedings before his guilty plea and commencement of trial, additional evidence surfaced during the penalty trial and before sentencing that required the court to order a competency hearing. 1368.) In November 1992, after a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. While awaiting trial, defendant asked his brother Steve to do something to Mowery. S.S. Juror R.D. indicated she simply wondered whether jurors could say hi to defendant.
Juror B.T. pulled a folded newspaper out of her purse. Another prospective juror who did not serve on the panel mentioned that the first juror`s story had influenced him. Before leaving the courtroom, Juror M.B. Mary Cagle, defendant`s ex-wife and Karr`s mother, had seen defendant leaving the parking lot next to Karr`s apartment earlier in the evening. Mary Cagle, who arrived on the scene of her daughter`s murder shortly after the shooting, told officers that she had seen defendant driving his Ford pickup away from Karr`s residence shortly before the shooting. That is not the case here, as the officers were aware that defendant was on probation and subject to a search condition at the time of their search. Therefore, when defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had. The evidence defendant asserts would have materially assisted his mental state defense consists of nothing more than mere speculation on his part. Defendant contends that each of the articles skews and telescopes the evidence and testimony presented toward the rendering of a verdict of death.
In addition, there is no indication that Cagle`s alleged scams had anything to do with defendant or that defendant was even aware of her behavior when he committed the three murders. In addition, defendant complains that the court should require the jury to make written findings or achieve unanimity as to aggravating circumstances. Defendant complains that, for several reasons, the court deprived him of his right to due process and a reliable sentence when it instructed the jury as to the statutory sentencing factors. On the merits, we find the trial court`s careful questioning of the panel ensured the removal of the first prospective juror, and there is no indication that the second prospective juror`s remarks that he was influenced by the account of the unrelated murder affected the other prospective jurors or undermined the court`s ability to empanel a fair and impartial jury. Following the death verdict, the trial court denied defendant`s motion to modify the verdict under section 190.4, subdivision (e).
After considering the evidence, the court denied the requested competency hearing and accepted defendant`s guilty plea. As an alternative argument, defendant contends that even if substantial evidence did not support the need for a competency hearing, the cumulative effect of the evidence should have led the court, in its exercise of discretion, to order such a hearing. He claims that the court`s questioning effectively nullified any sympathy she may have felt toward defendant by alerting her to the fact that her note may have compromised her ability to impose the death penalty. Before the court could act on the note, the jury sent another one at 2:55 p.m., stating: Upon further discussion, we have decided to take one last vote on Monday morning. In the affidavits, the jury selection experts give their opinions on the potentially unfair effect of the statutory voir dire procedures, including the apprehension prospective jurors may feel when voir dire is conducted in the presence of other prospective jurors. On Monday, November 16, the jury returned a verdict of death. Defendant`s final contention is that international law compels the elimination of the death penalty. Delaney did not and could not specify what evidence would meet its threshold test, the court did observe that the defendant need not prove evidence he sought to discover would lead to his exoneration and that `the defendant`s showing need not be detailed or specific, but it must rest on more than mere speculation.` (Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p.
