 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Johnson5/21/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Daniel Christopher Johnson was convicted of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) The jury also found true the two alleged special circumstances, that the murder was committed for financial gain, and while lying in wait. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subds. (a)(1) & (15).) Appellant received a prison sentence of life without possibility of parole.
Appellant raises numerous claims of error, contending: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when investigating allegations of jury misconduct; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting portions of appellant's videotaped statements to the police; (3) the trial court wrongly rejected certain defense evidence as to appellant's mental state; (4) the trial court violated the corpus delicti rule by admitting evidence of appellant's involvement in the planning of another murder for financial gain; (5) the trial court wrongly refused certain pinpoint jury instructions; (6) the lying in wait special circumstance is unconstitutional; (7) the prosecutor committed Griffin error and prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; and (8) the trial court wrongly instructed the jury using CALJIC No. 17.41.1.
We find no prejudicial errors, and affirm the judgment of conviction.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In summary, the prosecution at trial presented an overwhelming case against appellant. Appellant had met his friend Marc Henneberry (Marc) in a special education class in high school in Pleasanton. Appellant dominated Marc, who was mentally slower. Marc's father Vincent Henneberry (Vince) was a somewhat wealthy man with a difficult, domineering, violent, or abusive personality, and appellant disliked and feared him. Appellant formed a plan to kill Vince and use his money to purchase a truck, and open a country and western nightclub.
On January 3, 1995, appellant brought a baseball bat from his home to Vince's house, where he and Marc waited for Vince to come home. Appellant also prepared and brought along a note that seemingly implicated a gang in the crime. When Vince came through the front door, appellant beat him to death with the baseball bat, took his wallet, and attached to the body the note that suggested gang involvement in the murder. He and Marc then flew to Reno, where the two men went drinking, gambling, and whoring with the victim's money.
When questioned by the authorities about the crime, appellant gave a number of different stories. First, he denied any involvement, and blamed the crime on gang members; then he claimed he killed the victim in self-defense; and ultimately he admitted he killed Vince with a baseball bat for his money, after having first donned latex gloves and preparing a note to place on Vince's back, and after appellant waited for Vince to return home.
Appellant and Marc were charged with murder. The special circumstances of lying in wait and financial gain were also charged as a basis for seeking the death penalty. Appellant's trial was severed from that of Marc, based on possible Aranda-Bruton problems. At trial appellant conceded carrying out the killing, but contended he did so in self-defense or imperfect self-defense.
Richard Vanier testified that Vince, the victim, had been one of his closest friends. On January 5, 1995, Vanier received a call from Vince's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|