Filed 9/12/13 P. v. Lockhart CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E055125
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF10000746)
RICHARD ANTHONY LOCKHART, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. W. Charles Morgan,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Randall D. Einhorn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Scott Bail met defendant Richard Anthony Lockhart at a bus stop and invited
defendant to the apartment shared by Bail and his roommate John Jakway. During the
1 night, Jakway was stabbed and Scott Bail was struck in the face as he entered the
bedroom in response to Jakway’s cries for help. Defendant was convicted by a jury of
second degree murder of John Jakway and misdemeanor battery of Scott Bail. He
admitted a prior conviction alleged under the Strikes law, and was sentenced to a term of
30 years to life for the second degree murder, and a current term of six months for the
battery. Defendant appealed.
On appeal, defendant claims the court erred in (1) admitting his pretrial statement
to investigating detectives on the grounds he had invoked his right to counsel prior to
being admonished of his Miranda rights,1 and (2) denying his motion for mistrial on the
ground of prosecutorial misconduct for distributing a transcript of defendant’s taped
interview which included information about defendant’s probation and parole status. We
affirm with directions to amend the abstract of judgment.
BACKGROUND
In January 2010, Scott Bail and John Jakway shared an apartment on Iowa Street
in Riverside. The two had lived together for approximately one year, but had been good
friends for seven years. On the evening of January 30, 2010, after drinking for a time,
Bail and Jakway left the apartment by bus to retrieve some belongings of Bail’s that he
had left at a sober living home. Jakway left to return to their apartment before Bail had
collected all his clothes.
1 Referring to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602].
2 After collecting his belongings, Bail went to the bus station to catch the bus to
return to the apartment. At the bus station, Bail met defendant who introduced himself as
“Brian.” Bail believed defendant was homeless and invited defendant to come to the
apartment where he could eat, drink and shower. Bail had brought “strays” home on
prior occasions to help people out.
Bail and defendant took the bus to the apartment Bail shared with Jakway,
upsetting Jakway. Jakway yelled and told defendant to leave several times, but Bail blew
it off and ignored Jakway. For most of the evening, Bail and defendant drank in the
living room, while Jakway stayed in the bedroom. At one point, defendant went into the
kitchen and offered to wash dishes. Defendant and Bail drank vodka till they ran out, and
defendant went to the store to purchase more alcohol.
At another point, Jakway went into the bathroom, which was located within the
bedroom of the apartment, to be left alone. Bail and defendant tried to calm him down
and talk him into allowing defendant to stay the night. Defendant, who had been
informed earlier that Jakway was homosexual, offered to give Jakway a blow job, but
Jakway told him to go away. Bail pointed out to Jakway that it was cold outside, so
Jakway agreed defendant could stay until 6:00 a.m. the next morning. Jakway stayed in
the bedroom the entire time defendant was there.
Sometime thereafter, while Bail was sitting on the living room couch, defendant
walked past him and entered the bedroom; Bail assumed he had to use the bathroom.
However, a few seconds later, Bail heard Jakway scream for help, and a hitting sound, so
he ran into the bedroom. As soon as Bail crossed the threshold, he was struck in the face
3 and head, and fell to the floor, possibly losing consciousness. When Bail picked himself
up, he was bleeding and disoriented. He saw Jakway on the bed, motionless. Defendant
told him that Jakway was just sleeping and that he would be all right in the morning.
Defendant calmly and casually pulled a sheet or other covering over Jakway. Bail
was frightened and covered with blood from his facial injuries. Defendant took Bail into
the bathroom, took Bail’s shirt off, and started wiping the blood from Bail, using some
spray cleaner to wipe the blood off. Then defendant took Bail’s shirt outside to one of
the dumpsters. While defendant was outside, Bail tried to call 911, but defendant
returned so he hung up. Bail told defendant he had to call the police and do something
with the body, so defendant left. After he had gone, Bail found a knife in the kitchen
sink. It seemed out of place, so Bail set it on a towel. Then Bail called to report the
murder.
Riverside Police Department Lt. Bartholomew responded to the 911 call. When
she arrived at the apartment, Bail came out, upset and agitated, and asked for help for his
friend. In the bedroom, they found an adult male lying on the bed, motionless, and
covered with blood on his upper chest and left side.
Officer Tedesco also responded to the 911 call, and was advised that a transient
male wearing a white shirt had left the scene. As she drove to the location, she saw a
person who matched the description. The person was the defendant, whom she stopped.
The officer saw some blood spatter on the shirt, but the bottom of the shirt was tucked in.
The officer asked defendant to pull out his shirt tail, and when one of the backup officers
pulled it out, she saw more blood on the bottom of the shirt. Defendant informed the
4 officer that he was coming from the trolley, but the officer was aware that the trolley did
not run at that hour (1:30 a.m.).
At the crime scene, investigating officers found knives and collected them. Inside
the dumpster, investigators found a shirt and collected it. Laboratory testing of the knives
revealed the presence of blood on one of them. Swabs of the blood on the knife, as well
as cuttings of the bloodstains found on Bail’s and defendant’s shirts, were sent to a
laboratory for DNA testing along with reference samples from Jakway, Bail and
defendant.
Testing of the cuttings from the bottom of defendant’s shirt showed blood from
three sources, with Jakway being the major contributor. The stains on the bottom of that
shirt were of three types: spatter, transfer stains, and watery stains. Bail’s blood was also
found on a cutting from another location on defendant’s shirt. The blood stains from
Bail’s shirt were from a single source, Bail. The swabs from the knife handle had
possible major contributors that included both Jakway and Bail.
The autopsy revealed Jakway had died of two knife wounds, inflicted on the left
side of the body, near the armpit area. Both wounds penetrated from left to right, and
from back to front. Both wounds damaged the inside of the left lung. The second wound
also damaged the sack around the heart and punctured the heart. Jakway also suffered a
rib fracture and there were defensive wounds on his hands.
5 At the police station, defendant was interviewed by homicide detectives several
hours later.2 The defendant denied stabbing Jakway but he acknowledged fighting with
Bail. Defendant also admitted he went into the bedroom to talk to Jakway, and that he sat
on Jakway’s legs on the bed. Defendant stated he did not know where the knife came
from, but that Jakway “went to hand it back over to . . . somewhere else,” made a “small
move.” Defendant reported that Jakway jumped up and was pierced by the knife
accidentally, stabbing himself.
Defendant was charged with the murder of Jakway (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a),
count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury of Bail. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d),
count 2.) It was further alleged he had previously been convicted of a serious or violent
felony within the meaning of the Strikes law. (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (c), (e)(1); Pen.
Code, § 1170.12, subd, (c)(1).) Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second
degree murder as to count 1, and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) as to count 2.
At sentencing, defendant admitted the Strike allegation. He was sentenced to 15 years to
life for the second degree murder, which was doubled under the Strikes law for a term of
30 years to life. Defendant was also sentenced to a concurrent term of 180 days for the
battery count.
Defendant timely appealed.
2 Additional facts relating to the circumstances of the interview will be discussed, infra.
6 DISCUSSION
1. Defendant’s Fifth Amendment Claim
During in limine proceedings, defendant sought a ruling excluding his pretrial
statements on the grounds he (a) was not properly advised of his Miranda rights prior to
the interrogation, and (b) unequivocally invoked his right to counsel prior to making
incriminating statements. The court ruled that the defendant’s indication that “[i]f I’m
gonna be charged with something or something like that, like, regardless, I’m gonna go
ahead and um, I’ll just, I’ll wait ‘til I can talk to my [attorney]”3 was ambiguous and
equivocal, authorizing the detectives to further inquire.
Defendant argues that the court erred in ruling defendant’s statements admissible.
We disagree.
a. Standard of Review
The scope of our review is well established: we must accept the trial court’s
resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if they are
substantially supported. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 412; People v.
Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1033.) Once the facts have been determined, we
review the decision to admit the statements under the de novo standard of review, where
we independently determine whether the statements were lawfully admitted into
evidence. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 918.)
3The transcript of the recording reviewed during in limine motions indicates defendant would wait until he could “talk to my children.” This was corrected subsequently. We have watched the DVD of defendant’s interview; defendant did not mention children.
7 b. Analysis
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that “‘no
person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”’” This
protection applies to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
(Malloy v. Hogan (1964) 378 U.S. 1, 8 [12 L.Ed.2d 653, 84 S.Ct. 1489]; People v.
Thomas (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 987, 1005.) In Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S.
436, the United States Supreme Court adopted a set of prophylactic measures to protect
this right from the “inherently compelling pressures” of custodial interrogation. (Id. at p.
467.) To counteract the coercive pressure, the holding of Miranda requires police
officers to warn a suspect prior to questioning that he has the right to remain silent, and a
right to the presence of any attorney. (Id. at p. 444.) After the warnings are given, if the
suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he is not subject to further
questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates
conversation. (Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 [68 L.Ed.2d 378, 101
S.Ct. 1880].)
A suspect may waive the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney
present. (Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) 559 U.S. 98, 104 [130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d
1045].) Once a suspect has waived his Miranda rights, any subsequent assertion of the
right to counsel must be articulated “sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in
the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.”
(Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 452, 459 [129 L.Ed.2d 362, 114 S.Ct. 2350].)
When a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement, it is often good police
8 practice for the interviewing officers to clarify whether or not he wants an attorney, but
officers are not required to ask clarifying questions. (Id. at p. 461.)
Thus, if the accused makes a statement concerning the right to counsel that is
ambiguous or equivocal, or makes no statement after admonishment, the police are not
required to end the interrogation, or to ask questions to clarify whether the accused wants
to invoke his or her Miranda rights. (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370, ___
[130 S.Ct. 2250, 2259, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098].)
The decision in Berghuis, supra, notes that there is good reason to require an
accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously:
such a requirement avoids difficulties of proof and provides guidance to officers on how
to proceed in the face of ambiguity. (Berghuis v. Thompkins, supra, 130 S.Ct. at p.
2260.) The court went further to explain that if an ambiguous act, omission, or statement
could require police to end the interrogation, police would be required to make difficult
decisions about an accused’s unclear intent and face the consequence of suppression if
they guess wrong. (Ibid.) Thus, after Miranda rights have been explained to a suspect,
and he or she has waived them, he or she must invoke those rights “affirmatively” to
restore the rights after having already waived them. (Davis v. United States, supra, 512
U.S. at pp. 460-461.)
9 The Davis requirement for an unambiguous invocation has also been applied to
pre-waiver statements referring to counsel which are ambiguous or equivocal.4 (See
People v. Sauceda-Contreras (2012) 55 Cal.4th 203, 217-219 [during admonishment,
defendant said if you bring me a lawyer I can tell you everything I know]; People v.
Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 181 [preadmonition statement that defendant would not
answer questions]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 25 [preadmonition statement
requesting that the interview not be recorded as defendant did not wish to incriminate
himself]; United States v. Rodriguez (9th Cir. 2008) 518 F.3d 1072, 1078-1079; United
States v. Brown (10th Cir. 2002) 287 F.3d 965, 972 [defendant answered “yes” to both
questions, indicating he would answer questions without a lawyer, and that he wanted to
talk to a lawyer].) In Nelson v. McCarthy (9th Cir. 1981) 637 F.2d 1291, concluded that
ambiguity relating to both pre- and post-waiver assertions of Miranda rights required
clarification. (Id. at pp. 1296-1297.) The clarification rule of Nelson survives Davis.
(Rodriguez, at pp. 1080-1081.)
Based on these authorities, and contrary to defendant’s argument, “‘[t]he rule that
interrogation must cease because the suspect requested counsel does not apply if the
request is equivocal; “[r]ather, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel.”’”
(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 587, citing People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th
4 In his reply brief, defendant asserts that the clarification rule applied only to invocations of the right to counsel made post-waiver, citing Sessoms v. Runnels (9th Cir. 2012) formerly at 691 F.3d 1054, 1061-1063. However, the opinion in Sessoms was vacated on June 27, 2013, and was remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Salinas v. Texas (2013) 570 U.S. ___ [133 S.Ct. 2174, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4697].
10 240, 266, italics added, quoting Davis v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 459.) Thus,
when a suspect makes an ambiguous prewaiver statement, officers are not required to
immediately cease questioning.
Whether a suspect has invoked his or her right to counsel is an objective inquiry.
(Davis v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 459.) If a suspect makes a reference to an
attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the
circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to
counsel, cessation of questioning is not required. (Ibid., italics in original.) If the
suspect’s statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the
officers have no obligation to stop questioning him. (Id. at pp. 461-462; People v.
Gonzalez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1111, 1124-1125.)
In Gonzalez, supra, the defendant said, “‘if for anything you guys are going to
charge me I want to talk to a public defendant too, for any little thing.’” (People v.
Gonzalez, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1116.) The California Supreme Court concluded the
statement was conditional, insofar as he expressed desire for a lawyer if he was going to
be charged. (Id. at p. 1126.) The court observed that a reasonable police officer in those
circumstances would not necessarily have known whether the condition would be
fulfilled since the charging decision is not made by police. (Ibid.)
In the present case, the defendant’s statement was nearly identical to the statement
in Gonzalez in its conditionality. The officer in this case explained that he wanted to talk
to the defendant about his involvement in the incident, and, because defendant had been
in custody, he wanted to read the defendant his rights. The defendant stated “Yeah, if
11 this, if this is, if this is like a serious thing though . . . . [¶] . . . I usually don’t go
through, I don’t, I don’t talk . . . . If I’m gonna be charged with something or something
like that, like, regardless, I’m gonna go ahead and um, I’ll just, I’ll wait ‘til I can talk to
my [attorney].” This statement was conditional on two fronts: (a) if this is a serious
thing, and (b) if he was going to be charged with something. Insofar as questioning had
not begun—nor could it begin until after defendant had been admonished per Miranda—
the officer could not know if defendant’s involvement was serious, or with what, if
anything, defendant might be charged. Thus, the officer could either seek to clarify the
defendant’s ambiguous statement according to good police practice, or proceed with
questioning pursuant to the holding of Davis. Since the officer had not yet admonished
defendant, he proceeded to read the Miranda rights to defendant.
An officer’s act of giving defendant full Miranda warnings and obtaining his
waiver of his Miranda rights is a legitimate method of clarifying any ambiguity in a
defendant’s remark. (People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 27.) Once a suspect
receives Miranda warnings, he is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or
not to make a statement to authorities. (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 308 [105
S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222].) If the suspect thereafter requests counsel, the interrogation
must cease until an attorney is present. (Edwards v. Arizona, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 482.)
Here, the officer clarified whether the defendant was invoking his Miranda rights
by reading him the Miranda admonishment and asking defendant if he was willing to
speak to him. Defendant’s agreement to answer questions was a valid waiver of his Fifth
Amendment privilege. The statements were properly admitted.
12 2. Denial of Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial.
Defendant argues that his due process right to a fair trial was violated when the
court denied his motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct in distributing
an unredacted transcript of defendant’s taped interview. We disagree.
a. Background
During in limine proceedings relating to the admissibility of defendant’s pretrial
statements to detectives, the parties agreed that references to defendant’s probation and
parole status, and his statements about stabbing a couple of people when he was younger
would be redacted from the DVD and the transcripts. The jurors were provided with
transcripts of the statement, to read along as they listened to the recorded statements.
As the DVD of the defendant’s recorded statement was being played, the
prosecutor asked for a sidebar when she realized the transcript that had been distributed
had not been redacted. The prosecutor explained, and the defense acknowledged, that the
DVD had been redacted, so the objectionable passages were not heard by the jury. The
defendant requested that the court declare a mistrial, which was denied. The prosecutor
suggested that the transcripts be taken back and replaced with redacted versions. The
court collected the transcripts from the jurors and read an admonishment to the jury that
the defense and prosecution had agreed upon.
b. Analysis
A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (People
v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 985.) A mistrial should be granted if the court is
apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. (People v.
13 Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854.) Whether a particular incident is incurably
prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter and the trial court is vested with
considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions. (Ibid.) In reviewing ruling on
motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v.
Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1068.)
Prosecutorial misconduct may constitute an appropriate basis for a mistrial
motion. (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1154.) A prosecutor’s conduct
violates a defendant’s constitutional rights when the behavior comprises a pattern of
conduct that so infects the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a
denial of due process. (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181 [91 L.Ed.2d
144, 106 S.Ct. 2464].) The focus of the inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor’s action
on the defendant, not on the intent or bad faith of the prosecutor. (People v. Crew (2003)
31 Cal.4th 822, 839.) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error
under state law only when it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to
attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. (People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th
863, 920.)
People v. Hamilton, supra, involved the retrial of the penalty phase of a capital
case in which the prosecution presented transcripts of the testimony of certain witnesses,
including the defendant’s testimony, from the first trial. One witness from the first trial,
whose testimony was not read on retrial, was that of a jail inmate who had testified in the
first trial that defendant had confessed to him that he had committed the murder. During
cross-examination of defendant in the first trial, the prosecutor asked defendant about the
14 statement of the jailhouse witness relating to the confession, and defendant denied it. By
reading all of the defendant’s testimony from the first trial, the jury inferentially learned
that a witness from the first trial had testified that defendant had confessed. (People v.
Hamilton, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 918-919.)
On review, the Supreme Court held that there was no prosecutorial misconduct in
the failure to redact the portion of defendant’s prior testimony. The court noted that the
prosecutor did not refer to the alleged confession in arguing to the jury, and concluded
any error did not infect the retrial with unfairness or constitute a reprehensible method of
persuasion. (People v. Hamilton, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 920.).
Here, as well, we find no misconduct. First, it was the prosecutor who noticed that
the transcript had not been properly redacted and who promptly and tactfully brought it to
the court’s attention without drawing the jury’s attention to the harmful material
contained in the transcripts. The defendant did not timely object to the unredacted
transcript, and the prosecutor’s action prevented any further prejudice to the defendant.
(See People v. McKinzie (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1302, 1358.)
Second, the admonition to which the parties agreed was adequate to cure any
prejudice where it informed the jurors that they were to consider statements on the DVD
as the evidence of defendant’s statement, and informed them that the transcripts
contained a serious error. Defendant thus has not shown there was prejudice that could
not be cured by an admonition, such as would require a mistrial. (People v. Jenkins,
supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 985-986.) The brief and inadvertent exposure of the jury to the
unredacted transcript did not render the defendant’s trial unfair where it did not infect the
15 trial with unfairness or constitute a reprehensible method of persuasion. (People v.
Hamilton, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 920.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
3. The Abstract of Judgment Must be Amended.
In reviewing the record, we have noted a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.
Line 6(d) of the abstract of judgment correctly reflects that defendant was sentenced to 30
years to life in state prison, but line 8 fails to indicate that the sentence was imposed
under the Strikes law. The abstract must be amended.
The abstract of judgment constitutes the commitment and is the order sending the
defendant to prison, and the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence
into effect; no other warrant or authority is necessary to justify or require its execution.
(Pen. Code, § 1213; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, citing In re Black
(1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890.) It goes without saying that accuracy is essential in a
document that prescribes the execution of sentence and is provided to criminal
investigation and identification. (Pen. Code, § 1213, subd. (a).)
This court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time. (People v.
Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 186-187.) The clerk is directed to amend the abstract of
judgment to reflect that the sentence was imposed under the Strikes law by checking the
box on line 8.
DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment by
checking the box on line 8 to reflect that the sentence was imposed under the Strikes law,
16 and to forward a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
KING J.
CODRINGTON J.