In re Richards

63 Cal.4th 291

371 P.3d 195

202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678

In re William RICHARDS on Habeas Corpus.

No. S223651.

Supreme Court of California

May 26, 2016.

California Innocence Project, Jan Stiglitz, Justin Brooks, San Diego, and Alexander Simpson for Petitioner.

Steven F. Napolitano, Edward L. Tulin ; Richard A. Schwartz, Jeffrey B. White ; and Barry C. Scheck for Innocence Project, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

David L. Faigman, San Francisco, for Thomas Albright, Thomas L. Bohan, Barbara E. Bierer, Michael Bowers, Mary A. Bush, Peter J. Bush, Arturo Casadevall, Simon A. Cole, M. Bonner Denton, Shari Seidman Diamond, Rachel Dioso–Villa, Jules Epstein, Lisa Faigman, Stephen E. Fienberg, Brandon L. Garrett, Paul C. Giannelli, Henry T. Greely, Edward Inwinkelried, Allan Jamieson, Karen Kafadar, Jerome P. Kassirer, Jonathan “Jay” Koehler, David Korn, Jennifer Mnookin, Alan B. Morrison, Erin Murphy, Nizam Peerwani, Joseph L. Peterson, D. Michael Risinger, Michael J. Saks, George F. Sensabaugh, Jr., Clifford Spiegelman, Hal Stern, William C. Thompson, James L. Wayman, Sandy Zabell and Ross E. Zumwalt as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Stephanie H. Zeitlin, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

CANTIL–SAKAUYE, C.J.

In 1997, petitioner William Richards was convicted of the 1993 murder of his wife, Pamela. In 2012, by a 4 to 3 decision, this court rejected his claim on habeas corpus that his conviction should be overturned because the prosecution's dental expert had recanted his expert opinion testimony at trial that a lesion on Pamela's hand was a human bite mark matching petitioner's unusual teeth. (In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84, 289 P.3d 860 (Richards I ).) The majority concluded that the expert's recantation did not constitute “false evidence” within the meaning of Penal Code section 1473 as the statute then read¹ because, in the absence of “a generally accepted and relevant advance in the witness's field of expertise” or “a widely accepted new technology” that would allow “experts to reach an objectively more accurate conclusion,” petitioner had failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the expert's opinion at trial was “objectively untrue.” (Richards I, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 963, 966, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84, 289 P.3d 860.) In 2014, however, the Legislature responded to our decision in Richards I by amending section 1473 to state that “ ‘false evidence’ shall include opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances.” (§ 1473, subd. (e)(1), as added by Stats.2014, ch. 623, § 1.)

Petitioner has filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus before this court in which he contends that, under the 2014 legislative revision of section 1473, he is now entitled to relief and that his conviction should be overturned. For the reasons discussed hereafter, we agree.

I. Statement of the Case

The San Bernardino County District Attorney charged petitioner with the August 10, 1993, murder (§ 187) of his wife, Pamela Richards.

Petitioner's first two full trials ended in mistrials with hung juries. A third trial ended in a mistrial because the trial court recused itself during jury selection. In petitioner's fourth trial, the jury announced it was deadlocked; it then received further instruction concerning reasonable doubt, after which the jury returned a conviction of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced petitioner to 25 years to life, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal in August 2000.

In 2007, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, asserting that his 1997 murder conviction was based on false evidence and that new evidence unerringly established his innocence. The superior court issued an order to show cause and subsequently held an evidentiary hearing in 2009. At the conclusion of that hearing, the superior court granted the petition and vacated petitioner's judgment of conviction.

The prosecution appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed in November 2010. We granted review, and, as noted above, affirmed the Court of Appeal judgment by a 4 to 3 vote on December 3, 2012. (Richards I, supra, 55 Cal.4th 948, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84, 289 P.3d 860.)

Following the Legislature's 2014 amendment to section 1473, petitioner filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus. We issued an order to show cause returnable before this court, and respondents, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the warden of the California facility at which petitioner is incarcerated, represented by the San Bernardino County District Attorney, have filed a return in opposition to the petition.²

II. Petitioner's Jury Trial

The following evidence was presented at petitioner's 1997 jury trial.

A. Petitioner's relationship with his wife

Petitioner and his wife, Pamela, lived on a remote property they owned in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. The plot had a small house and a camper parked nearby. They used a generator, kept in a small, fenced shed, for electricity. To access their home, one had to ascend a steep, sand-and-gravel driveway. The couple kept several dogs on the property to ward off intruders.

Petitioner and his wife had been having financial and marital difficulties, and both had sexual relationships outside the marriage. At the time of her death Pamela had been having a sexual relationship with Eugene Price, whom she had helped to recover from a helicopter accident. Pamela planned to leave petitioner and find an apartment with Price.

B. The night of August 10, 1993

On the night of her death, August 10, 1993, petitioner was working a night shift. Price received a message from Pamela on his answering machine sometime between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. At approximately, 9:30 p.m., Price tried calling Pamela at the camper but received a busy signal. Price continued to try to call Pamela, calling approximately every five minutes, but he continued to receive a busy signal. Because of past problems with the telephone service in that area, Price contacted the phone company to check the line. Price continued to call Pamela, but without success.

At approximately 11:55 p.m., Price telephoned Pamela again, but this time petitioner answered. He sounded stressed and agitated. When Price asked for Pamela, petitioner said she was dead—and he told Price that her head was bashed in and her eye was hanging out of its socket. Price told petitioner to call 911.

At 11:58 p.m., petitioner called 911. In that call, petitioner stated he had just come home and discovered his wife was dead. He said he thought Pamela fell off the porch steps and hit her head.

Petitioner placed a second call to 911 at 12:06 a.m. In that call, petitioner asked when responders would arrive. He said that he thought that she had fallen, but that “things don't look right here at all,” that “there's things moved,” and that they should send someone who could examine the scene. The 911 operator assured petitioner that dispatch would send someone who could examine the scene and advised petitioner not to touch anything. Petitioner responded that he had not touched anything but the phone and the door and that he had rolled Pamela's body over to see if she was all right.

Petitioner placed a third call to 911 at 12:33 a.m. In that call, he again asked when responders would arrive. He also stated that, when he went to start the generator, he observed blood and Pamela's pants in that area and saw there was blood inside the camper. He stated his belief that Pamela had been attacked and killed near the generator because oil had been spilled there as well. Petitioner expressed anger as to why responders had not yet arrived. The dispatcher repeatedly advised petitioner not to touch anything and suggested he go sit in his car. Petitioner said he had not touched anything and that he would go sit with Pamela.

San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Mark Nourse arrived at the scene shortly after 12:30 a.m. The sky was overcast and the property was dark, with no light source. Deputy Nourse used his patrol vehicle lights and his flashlight to illuminate the scene.

Petitioner led Deputy Nourse to Pamela's body; the couple's dogs acted aggressively toward Deputy Nourse as he approached. According to Deputy Nourse, it appeared that part of Pamela's skull had been gouged out by some kind of blunt object and that pieces of her skull were nearby. One of her eyes was gouged out and an ear partially ripped off. Deputy Nourse could not detect a pulse. The body was neither warm nor cold. Her arm was pliable. Her blood was still wet, bright red, and puddled; it had not coagulated or soaked into the sandy soil. Based on his prior experience as a trained emergency medical technician and as a first responder firefighter, Deputy Nourse believed she had very recently died.

Petitioner began discussing the crime scene with Deputy Nourse. He told the deputy that Pamela was “stone cold dead” and that she must have been dead a long time because the battery in the camper had run out. Petitioner pointed out a cinder block that he said was used to kill her and stated there was also a stepping stone with blood on it. Petitioner gave his scenario concerning how he thought the assault and killing took place, including that he thought the attack had begun near the generator. According to Deputy Nourse, petitioner also said: “It don't matter any, all the evidence that relates to this case I already touched and moved trying to figure out how this whole thing happened.” Deputy Nourse described petitioner's demeanor as “very calm, cool, [and] collected,” but occasionally petitioner would fall to his knees crying, after which he would get back up and then continue talking. To the deputy, it seemed as if petitioner was...