He maintains that he did not receive proper notice of Dr. Markman's testimony, as would be required if the prosecution presented that testimony in its case-in-chief. 422.). 47 [276 P. 1003], then confirmed the Estorga holding, but declined to apply it to a case in which the credibility of prosecution witnesses was open to question. 3d 162 [133 Cal. WebBy the time I finished reading about Shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed. For example, during the general voir dire of Juror Staggs, she said that if defendant committed rape, "I think I would probably be more inclined to go for a stiffer sentence, possible." App. WebShirley Lynette Ledford passed awayon 1 Nov 1979in Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. Defendant presumably could have given the court or counsel any information he had at that time. There is 1 volunteer for this cemetery. FN 29. Regardless of those circumstances the jury would still have heard evidence that defendant killed Lamp because she had witnessed the crimes he perpetrated on another victim, and that defendant had tortured four of his other victims. The Court of Appeal found error, but declined to reverse because the court permitted some inquiry into the area, the defense voir dire of jurors was extremely cursory, and the defense exercised only one peremptory challenge. In order to intelligently exercise the right to challenge for cause defendant's counsel must be accorded reasonable opportunity to lay a foundation for the challenge by questioning the prospective jurors on voir dire to learn whether any entertain a fixed opinion of this nature." Neither can we determine whether the prosecutor, at the time he asked the question, intended to prove the fact at issue. At closing argument the prosecutor suggested that the photographs and tapes may show scenes of torture or murder. Then they bound her hands behind her back. Are you adding a grave photo that will fulfill this request? 3d 1080] the death-qualifying voir dire to four questions; (3) when the court advised a jury-selection expert, who arrived in the court's chambers without prior notice, that it would not authorize payment of county funds for her fees; (4) from a hearing following the prosecution's subpoena requiring defense counsel to produce photographs allegedly given him by defendant; (5) from an ex parte communication with the jury where the court advised the jurors on the "gruesome" nature of the evidence and reminded them of their obligation to evaluate it dispassionately; (6) and (7) from at least two in-chambers conferences on the scope of cross-examination. He didn't say that he couldn't do it." Learn more about managing a memorial . Certain portions were read by the prosecutor, and acknowledged by defendant, on cross-examination. Dr. Maloney, testifying for the defense at the penalty trial, said he had discussed his report with Dr. Coburn, a psychiatrist, and that Dr. Coburn agreed with its conclusions. 239].). 2d 360, 388 [14 Cal. After Norris also raped Gilliam, they retied the girls, and all remained in the van over night. As explained in the latter case, "[t]he argument addresses the minds of the jury to the deterrence of designated 'potential killers' rather than the penalty to be adjudged to the defendants. Defendant's failure to object to inadmissible evidence, or to request limiting instructions when evidence was admissible for other purposes, bars him from raising the issue on appeal. 3d 443, 455-456 [215 Cal. But defendant never made such a motion. The fourth question asked: "Do you have such a conscientious opinion or religious conviction regarding the death penalty that if you found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and the special circumstances herein alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be death?" Such a proceeding would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand. Remove advertising from a memorial by sponsoring it for just $5. Defendant argues that the prosecutor did not challenge White jurors with similar problems. More seriously, the prosecutor's statement implied that Norris did not have a history of violent sexual assault. The court told defense counsel that under the rules he could not rehabilitate her, and granted the challenge. [5] Defendant's contention that the trial court failed to rule on the voluntariness of his consent, and thus failed to adjudicate a fundamental issue, is meritless. There is no evidence that any victim went voluntarily to the place of her death, and only then was restrained against her will. He was sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. Rather, we affirmed in each case because the majority concluded that the prosecutor's remarks did not have the effect of misleading the jury as to its responsibility to determine the appropriate penalty. Section 844 provides in relevant part: "To make an arrest a peace officer may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is , after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired." 3d 512, and Allen, supra, 42 Cal. Rptr. (40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. During voir dire, Kuriki stated that she did not think that she could be fair, because she would get emotionally involved. Rptr. The manner in which the murderer disposes of the victim's body, however, is part of the circumstances of the crime, admissible under section 190.3, factor (a). He hit her in the left elbow with the sledgehammer over 25 times in total, while Lynette screamed and cried. This account has been disabled. 3d 392, 412, and declared that "[a]lthough in many contexts a procedure depriving defendant of the right to secure an impartial jury necessarily dictates reversal (see, e.g., People v. Wheeler [48 Cal. 2d 842 [56 Cal. The prosecutor said that defendant "would never be rehabilitated. After about 45 minutes defendant emerged, and the 2 men argued whether to kill Schaefer. 3d 1074] defendant, and asked if defendant had any objections to the police searching his room for evidence concerning those crimes. fn. based on information from your browser. Thus, the search of the van and the seizure of items therein were properly held to be lawful by the trial court. The prosecution may not comment upon a defendant's failure to call a witness if the defendant has a privilege to bar disclosure of that witness's testimony. 3d 512, 538-544, we recognized that the wording of an instruction in the statutory language "leave[s] room for some confusion as to the jury's role" in determining the [48 Cal. Defendant contends that subsequent searches of his van, storage boxes, and jail cell, done pursuant to a warrant, were unlawful. (Ibid.) Sign up forOxygen Insiderfor all the best true crime content. In any case, this remote sort of office gossip would fall within the statute as public rumor. fn. The prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. He showed the book to a newspaper reporter who wrote an article describing it. In adopting this standard to measure reversible error, we follow our recent decision in People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal. 8 that a complaint is a document which institutes a criminal proceeding, fn. People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 314 [234 Cal. If defendant had moved under section 987.9 for funds to hire a jury-selection expert, we could view the judge's statement as a denial of that motion, and inquire whether it was an abuse of discretion. Defendant characterizes the prosecutor's argument here as coming within the framework of Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, but the frame does not fit. All photos uploaded successfully, click on the Done button to see the photos in the gallery. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. You need a Find a Grave account to continue. Expressing his frustration at being unable to question the juror, counsel challenged for cause, but the court denied the challenge. People fled the court room, including the court room artist, according to "The Toolbox Killer.". 457, 545 P.2d 833]; People v. Delgado (1973) 32 Cal. Defendant also claims other portions of the prosecutor's argument were misconduct: 1. 649, 491 P.2d 1]). ), This error, however, is of little significance. Under these circumstances it is not reasonably possible that the failure of the court to give a reasonable-doubt instruction affected the verdict. WebHe had served less than three years. 3d 826, 834 [164 Cal.Rptr. Upptck. Roy Norris was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder, and sentenced to 45 years to life. The evidence was admissible. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. Your email address will not be published. App. She had been hitchhiking home from her job. 534, 547), that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates only to a particular doctrine of law." The prosecutor's language did not envision an appropriateness decision during the weighing process, for it describes the weighing as a separate decision which precedes the penalty determination, and one, moreover, based on a type of arithmetic calculation incompatible with a moral assessment. In response to the fourth question, whether she would automatically vote for death if she found defendant guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, she replied, "Well, if all the evidence pointed that way, yes.". Juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, "That's hard to say." Bittaker and Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford, on October 31, 1979. Ledford was abducted as she stood outside a gas station, hitchhiking home from a Halloween party in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los Angeles. He also called Dr. Tronkman, a psychiatrist, who testified that defendant may have committed the 1974 assault while in an altered state of consciousness. In Ketchel (which was tried before Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L. Ed. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. One is to initiate criminal proceedings; the other to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest warrant. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." Of the convictions brought before the jury, only Douglas's conviction for burglary would meet that test. The prosecution claimed that the background noise on the tape was the engine of defendant's van, and showed that defendant was driving the van, and thus present, while Norris tortured Ledford. Which memorial do you think is a duplicate of Shirley Ledford (6681995)? His suicide note stated that the murders haunted him. He took a clothes hanger, and looped it around her neck. When defendant had used all 26 peremptory challenges given him by statute (former 1070), the judge observed that defense counsel had said he intended to exercise all his challenges to protect the record. 17 We have held, however, that the Ledford tape was properly seized, and that defendant's failure to object bars him from attacking the police's listening to the tape. Norris said he had told Schaefer that she would not be killed, but defendant insisted on killing her so she could not identify them. Defendant approached, sprayed her with Mace, and attempted to drag her into the van. (P. App. Consequently defendant was not charged with the Robin R. crimes. 28 The prosecution objected to taking the original tape from the court, and the court refused to permit any copying. Robin R. was unable to identify defendant in person, her description of the interior of the van where she was held did not match defendant's van, and the manner of her kidnapping and rape differed from defendant's characteristic mode of operation. Rptr. Try again later. "For those of you who do not know what hell is like, you will find out," prosecutor Stephen Kay told the jurors, according to a 1981 UPI report. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our, Press J to jump to the feed. The photographs of the victims and the shocking tape recording of the torture of the last victim could not help but impress a jury. 4.) Although Ms. R. did not describe the van with the same specificity as North's victim's description of the car, the critical similarity is that in both cases the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle was not merely a container of evidence, but an instrumentality of the crime. There was an error deleting this problem. People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal. Try again. Family members linked to this person will appear here. 369, 506 P.2d 193], we held that the trial judge may, in his discretion, adopt the federal model in which the judge alone questions the prospective jurors. On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. 2d 231, 105 S. Ct. 2633] or People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 1097]. (Pp. At the start of the second day, the court called counsel and McLaughlin into chambers and told her that "I am not authorizing your services." Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. 2d 418 [67 Cal. Shirley Lynette Ledford has succumbed the ultimate hell by being tortured by both Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. Lloyd Carlos Douglas testified that defendant told him in detail of the abduction of Gilliam and Lamp, the rape and torture of Gilliam, and the murder of both girls. Most of the other items seized were not offered into evidence, and their seizure did not prejudice defendant. In closing argument the prosecutor remarked, "And you didn't see Dr. Coburn testify here. Defendant unpersuasively argues that the second entry by the officers, when the door was kicked in, violated section 844 because the officers failed to give defendant an opportunity to admit them. 2. The judge also excused several jurors whose responses suggested an automatic vote for a life sentence, without questions to probe whether the juror was really disqualified. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. When directly questioned on her ability to reach a decision strictly based on the evidence presented in court, she indicated her belief that she could do so. " (People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. FN 35. He also objects to the findings that the murders of Schaefer, Hall, Gilliam, and Ledford "involved the infliction of torture" ( 190.2, subd. Upon returning, he arranged for Norris to take a series of photographs of him with Gilliam, beginning with them clothed, then nude, then during intercourse and oral copulation. Defendant then returned to the van. 70-71.) Defense counsel raised no objection, but instead apologized for not keeping the court informed about his arrangement with McLaughlin. 3d 539. 3d 1 [139 Cal. A while later Norris returned alone, and told defendant that Hall could find her own way home. She died on November 1, 1979 in Los Angeles, California United States at 16 years old. There was a problem getting your location. Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1 [17 L. Ed. 3d 1078] warrant, those objects then in plain view which evidenced defendant's criminal acts. 123]) because here the sole ground asserted by the People to justify the warrantless search of defendant's motel room was consent. His appeal is automatic. medianet_versionId = "3111299"; The two then switched places, with Norris turning on the tape recorder and then himself ordering Lynette to scream, while hitting her with a sledgehammer. He classified defendant as an "antisocial personality," a diagnostic category that replaces the former designations of psychopath and sociopath. Neither defendant nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp. This page may contain sensitive or adult content that's not for everyone. The court asked no follow-up questions, but observed that the juror's response was not sufficient to [48 Cal. Rptr. Oops, something didn't work. You can always change this later in your Account settings. We therefore find no error in the ruling. 3. Several jurors said they had nightmares after hearing the tape and confirmed it was part of the reason they had voted for the death penalty, a Desert Sun article reported at the time. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The Toolbox Killer Airs Sunday, October 3rd. 3d 301, rejected the defendant's contention that the police must come across the evidence inadvertently, the requirement urged by a minority of the United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. 443. On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that he had begun writing a book, and had shown drafts to a newspaper reporter and a guard. Since this case arose prior to the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, defendant relies on the vicarious exclusionary rule established by earlier California decisions (People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal. [11] Defendant claims he was improperly deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to be present on seven occasions during trial. dont Worry Demons are having fun with him in Gehenna. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. This argument is inconsistent with our opinion in People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal. The judge asked if she would be willing to listen to the evidence and be a fair and impartial juror; she said that "I could try, but I believe it would be difficult. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6681995/shirley-lynette-ledford. App. To use this feature, use a newer browser. Thus, in the case of "mere evidence," probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. The death penalty? The book itself was not put into evidence. FN 7. In his room police discovered seven bottles of various acids, which Norris said defendant planned to test on his next victim. Meanwhile, several jurors started to cry. 359, 365-366 [28 P. 261], so holds. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. [37] Defendant argues that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. (71 Cal.2d at p. But the further implication that Norris had no history of violent rape probably could not have been cured without informing the jury that Norris had such a history. 3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal. (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. Budds declined to do so. In 1981, Bittaker was sentenced to death, The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989. In Nye, supra, 71 Cal. The sponsor of a memorial may add an additional. 3d 301 [104 Cal. He points out that this special circumstance applies only if "the killing was not committed during the commission of the crime to which he was a witness" ( 190.2, subd. Rptr. WebGetentrepreneurial.com: Resources for Small Business Entrepreneurs in 2022. And a chance to spread his tales of torture and violence and bloodshed to other adoring prisoners such as the Richard Shoopman type who will some day be paroled to prey on the young girls in our society? 485, 423 P.2d 557]; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal. From June through October of 1979, defendant and Roy Norris kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls in the Los Angeles [48 Cal. We find it unnecessary to resolve these issues. 329-330 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 240], quoting McGautha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183, 208 [28 L. Ed. He then strangled Hall until she died and threw the body over an embankment into some bushes. 3d 731, 763 (overruled on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal. 3. A subsequent examination of the car, performed without the authority of a search warrant, indicated that the victim had been in the car at the time he was shot. She asked Norris if the men intended to kill her, and asked for [48 Cal. Kuriki, however, also stated that she believed she had the ability to follow the court's instructions and base her decision solely on the evidence as it comes from the witness stand. The trial court had previously refused to permit that information to go before the jury, and it is unlikely that an objection during closing argument would have changed that ruling. The district attorney objected. (Italics added.) Where do you think he's been for 18 of the last 22 years? (North, at p. 14 Any delay would have allowed him to duck back inside the room and resist entry. Some of these photographs came into possession of defense counsel, who turned them over to the police, and they were admitted into evidence. The evidence was graphic and compelling, [48 Cal. GREAT NEWS! Therefore, when the trial court denied defendant's suppression motion, it necessarily ruled on the voluntariness of defendant's consent.