maxine zazzara house address maxine zazzara house address

10. She never saw defendant with a gun and never saw him act violently, even when provoked. A .22-caliber bullet recovered from Ms. Kneiding's brain had been fired from the same gun that fired the bullets that killed Dale Okazaki and Tsai-Lian Yu. The Night Stalker bought a machete and broke into the house of Lela and Maxson Kneiding. As defendant recognizes, we repeatedly have rejected this claim. You can consider them only once., 10. Do you understand if at any time in the future you change your mind and desire to obtain independent legal advice regarding the contract, you have the right to ask the court to appoint an attorney to discuss that matter with you? 19, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347. Contact us. Explore. When he and Daniel Hernandez were seeking to be substituted as counsel for defendant, Arturo Hernandez stated they had entered into a written contract with defendant, adding: Also, the other parties that have retained us, his family, who are also liable, have acquired some financial responsibility to us due to that contract. The court had the exchange with defendant, which is quoted above, in which defendant stated he had read and understood the contract. Strand testified that the levels of recognition and predisposition were the highest he had ever seen. 339, 651 P.2d 1145.) Bruno Polo managed two pizzerias owned by Vincent Zazzara. At a subsequent autopsy, a .22-caliber bullet was retrieved from Okazaki's skull. Defendant subsequently exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse Prospective Juror Robert D. and eventually exhausted his peremptory challenges to the alternate jurors. The court's exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. Crawford later saw another officer make a similar gesture, raising two fingers. We missed him, detective Gil Carrillo said. Ernesto Abeyta Joseph Abbott Larry Defendant later withdrew this instruction: The Court: I do not believe that this instruction is pertinent to any evidence that I've heard in this case. Defendant correctly observes that we repeatedly have rejected this contention. ), [T]he rule applied when the trial judge is not aware of the conflict (and thus not obligated to inquire) is that prejudice will be presumed only if the conflict has significantly affected counsel's performance (Mickens v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 172-173, 122 S.Ct. The prosecutor responded that the photographs were not unduly gruesome and were relevant to show that the body had been covered by a blanket (which affected the determination of the time of death), the nature and extent of her injuries, and the position of her clothing, which suggested a sexual assault. (People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th 398, 426, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.). On January 30, 1989, the court again asked defendant whether he preferred wearing a leg brace that would not be visible to the jury, rather than leg chains. She had multiple bruises, lacerations and contusions on her face. Manuel Delatorre pursued and struck defendant on the head a second time, causing defendant to fall. We noted that the Court of Appeal rejected both definitions, preferring instead a provocative compromise that defines community as that area within a 20-mile radius of the courthouse. (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 49 Cal.3d 736, 742, 263 Cal.Rptr. We have further determined that refusal to so instruct does not contravene any constitutional requirement. A woman parking her car in her apartment house's garage was shot, but not killed. But the felony-murder rule and the burglary-murder special circumstance do not apply to a burglary committed for the sole purpose of assaulting or killing the homicide victim. We held that before the jury could be instructed that it could infer a consciousness of guilt, the trial court must determine as a matter of law whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, will sufficiently support the suggested inference. (Id. He shot Vincent first, then brutally assaulted Maxine by stabbing her to death. For example, defendant argued that the Zazzara and Chainarong K. charges should be tried separately from the Bell, Doi, Cannon, Whitney B., Nelson, and Kneiding charges, but these groups of charges were linked by evidence that the same Avia shoe prints found at the scene of the Zazzara and Chainarong K. crime scenes also were found at the scenes of the Bell, Doi, Cannon, Whitney B., and Nelson crimes. 495.). On September 3, 1985, a felony complaint was filed against defendant and the public defender was appointed as counsel. Maxine Zazzara Tsai-Lian Yu Jennie Vincow 2. (People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 973, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 75 P.3d 53; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 132-133, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) The email address cannot be subscribed. Former Code of Civil Procedure section 203 stated at that time: Each court shall adopt rules supplementary to such rules as may be adopted by the Judicial Council, governing the selection of persons to be listed as available for service as trial jurors. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or the due process clause of article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811.) 128, 616 P.2d 1301.10 In response to questioning by the court, Prospective Juror Robert D. stated that he would not automatically vote to impose the death penalty and, instead, would consider all of the evidence before making a decision. Their throats had been slashed and they had been shot in the neck and head. 1368 comes to mind. Daniel Hernandez responded: We've been considering that from the beginning of course and we haven't made a decision on that and we are very aware and concerned about that. The court replied: So am I. Defense counsel responded that defendant has up to now requested that he be given chains rather than a leg brace. This requirement is satisfied in the present case. The court appropriately released the jury the day it learned of the juror's murder and resumed deliberations the following day only after observing the jurors' demeanor and inquiring of the jury foreperson whether the jury was ready to resume deliberations. He denied that he would always vote to impose the death penalty for first degree murder no matter what the circumstances that led to that conviction. He stated that he would not necessarily be committed from the outset to the imposition of the death penalty.. Defendant contends that the circumstance that he was restrained by leg shackles deprived him of his due process and fair trial rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution., On the first day of jury selection, July 21, 1988, the court informed counsel outside the hearing of the jury that the bailiff reported that defendant was unhappy wearing a leg brace. Defendant declined the court's offer to permit defendant to speak to an independent attorney. If after consideration of all the circumstances, you feel sympathy for the defendant that is based on the evidence you have heard, and based on such sympathy you are inclined to extend mercy to the defendant, the law permits you to act upon such sympathy and fix the penalty at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.. (c)), four counts of forcible sodomy (286, former subd. Defendant refused to remove his sunglasses after being ordered to do so by the trial judge in open court. She was one of the few who actually had a good look at the Night Stalker. To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. We need not, and do not, decide whether the trial court was correct that these proposed special instructions on mitigating factors were argumentative because, in any event, the trial court properly denied the requested instructions because they duplicated the court's instructions. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue under section 1033, depriving him of his rights under article I, section 15 of the California Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 586-587, 186 Cal.Rptr. at p. 597, fn. The Court: Very well. Garden of Several hours later, she awoke lying facedown on her bed covered with blood. In this case he crawled into the house of Vincent and Maxine Zazzara, shooting both dead. 692, 809 P.2d 351. (People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th 395, 449, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 46, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) Deputy Public Defender Judith Crawford was present at the lineup as an observer for defendant. We have now seen Channel 11, and this is Channel 4, and they are the same. You know I'm a killer, so shoot me, I deserve to die. I've heard them all before and the fact remains that is what it is. The trial court gave one of the proposed instructions, refused five of them, and defendant withdrew the remaining four. When asked in the juror questionnaire what, if anything, they had learned about the case, they indicated, at most, only the most general familiarity with the case.5 They all stated that this information did not make them favor either the prosecution or the defense. His right to decide for himself who best can conduct the case must be respected wherever feasible. (Fn.omitted. [Citations. ), It is clear that the challenged photographs were relevant. [Citations.] Accordingly, defendant has not preserved this claim for review. The Governor may ameliorate any sentence by use of the commutation or pardon power (People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th 92, 172, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980; People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 220, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717.) Defendant argues that merely instructing to jury to consider [t]he age of the defendant at the time of the crime does not provide adequate guidance as to how the jury should apply age to the penalty determination. Defendant may not raise this issue for the first time on appeal. This is where police found their first clue to the identity of the Night The trial court denied defendant's motion to sever some of these counts and try these charges in eight separate trials. The next day, shortly after midnight on July 20, 1985, Somkid K. was sleeping on her living room couch when she was awakened by the sound of the sliding screen door opening. Her skull had been fractured; the injury could have been caused by a hammer. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. The car was running with the transmission in reverse. The jury found true allegations of multiple-murder, burglary, rape, forcible sodomy, and, forcible-oral-copulation special circumstances. On October 24, 1985, the prosecutor, defendant, Gallegos, Arturo Hernandez, and Daniel Hernandez appeared in camera before the municipal court. After Maxine died, Richard mutilated her body with a knife and gouged out her eyes. Relying upon our decision in Williams v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 736, 263 Cal.Rptr. The court then had the following exchange with defendant: The Court: Mr. Ramirez, could you tell me: how many years of school have you had? ] (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481.). 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231, which held that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere. He also cites Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. Her husband, Christopher Petersen awoke and sat up and defendant shot him in the head, but he did not lose consciousness. Photographs later taken of the crime scene showed poor lighting conditions that would make an identification of the assailant difficult. A person cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. And defendant did not show that the media coverage was unfair or slanted against him or revealed incriminating facts that were not introduced at trial. 346-347, 100 S.Ct. Several items taken from the residence later were recovered from Felipe Solano, who had purchased the items from defendant. It also would be useful just in general to indicate the manner or method of death The court later added that although they are not pleasant to look at, they are relevant and as non-inflammatory as possible. The court, sua sponte, then gave the jury a cautionary instruction: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to have some photographs given to you for your examination of the scene at the Zazzara household. Rather than explain why the proposed instruction was proper and request a ruling, trial counsel simply withdrew the proposed instruction. Weeks opined that the disparity between the percentage of Hispanics available for jury service and the percentage that appeared for service was caused by the jury commissioner's use of records from the registrar of voters to compile a primary list. Another victim, Florence Nettie Lang, 81, was beaten to death with a hammer. Receiving no reply, she sent her son to a neighbor's house by promising the child that the neighbor would give him popsicles and candy bars. On October 24, 1985, during defendant's arraignment in municipal court, defendant turned to the audience, raised his hand, and said, Hail Satan. A pentagram and the number 666 appeared on defendant's palm. Heading straight to the manufacturer, they looked through spreadsheets where the shoes were distributed in the United States, and only size 11.5 black shoes (the ones he was wearing) were manufactured. Defendant argues the trial court did not undertake a meaningful inquiry into the effect on the jury of the juror's death because it failed to inquire, for example, whether any of the jurors discussed the death of Juror Singletary, the manner of her death, or whether her death affected their ability to decide appellant's fate. Defendant objected to the jury's resuming deliberations the day after the jury learned of the juror's death, but defendant did not, at that time, ask the court to conduct a further inquiry of the jurors and, thus, has forfeited any argument that the court should have done so at that time. The victim repeated her identification of defendant at trial. Defendant argues there was an improper spillover effect during the guilt phase because of the joinder of weak and strong counts and that this effect continued during the penalty phase. The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68.) He argues that these strong counts should not have been joined with the weak counts involving Bell, Florence L., Cannon, and Nelson in which there was either no identification evidence or at best weak physical evidence that only tenuously linked appellant to the crimes. These charges can hardly be described as weak. Garden of Commemoration, Sec. Several days after Cannon was murdered, shortly after midnight on July 5, 1985, 16-year-old Whitney B. dressed for bed and sat down on her bed with the light on. Dr. A bucket had been placed underneath the window. Inside, she found her roommate, Okazaki, lying dead on the kitchen floor. Catherine is related to Julie Odonnell Wright and Gloria L Wright as well as 2 additional people. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. No error appears. The Sixth Amendment commands that the accused be defended by the counsel he believes to be best. (United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, supra, 548 U.S. at ----, 126 S.Ct. He brought her son from the closet and handcuffed them together to the bed. When Ramirez killed the accountant Peter Pan in his San Francisco home in 1985, evidence of the crime made it all the way up to then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, which would be a tipping point in the investigation. An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court's ruling falls outside the bounds of reason. [Citation. As the garage door was closing, she unlocked the door to her condominium and heard a noise behind her. (2d ed.1989) p. The court was interrupted by an objection from Arturo Hernandez, stating that he and Daniel Hernandez were not seeking appointment by the court but had been retained by defendant's family and terming the court's remarks out of order. The court continued, stating: Court is aware of that. U. S. Defendant argues that the effect of numerous errors committed during the guilt phase of the trial rendered the penalty determination unreliable. This holding in Hovey was abrogated by the passage of Proposition 115. He moved to discharge his attorney and obtain appointed counsel.