Case Law People v. Bennett

People v. Bennett

Document Cited Authorities (98) Cited in (418) Related

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MORENO, J.

A jury convicted defendant Eric Wayne Bennett of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 of Marie Powell Evans and found two special circumstances to be true—that the murder was committed while engaged in the commission of rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii)) and burglary (id., subd. (a)(17)(vii)). The jury also convicted defendant of several crimes related to his assault of Pamela B., including forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)), rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), first degree robbery within an inhabited dwelling (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 213, subd. (a)(1)), and first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 461.1). The jury found that defendant personally used a knife when he committed the crimes against Pamela B. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The jury returned a death verdict. The trial court sentenced defendant to death on the murder count and imposed and stayed a determinate term of 15 years four months for the crimes against Pamela B. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution's Case
a. Crimes Committed Against Pamela B.

In mid-September 1994, defendant installed flooring at the Costa Mesa home of Mary Beth Baughman. Shortly thereafter, defendant signed a rental contract for an adjoining unit and he, his wife, and two children moved in. Pamela B. lived alone in a small apartment directly behind Baughman's unit with a driveway separating her unit from defendant's.

On September 27, about 10:00 p.m., Pamela B. was home alone watching television in her bedroom. As it was a warm evening, Pamela B. had her front door, which opened into her bedroom, open with the screen door closed and latched. Pamela B. saw defendant standing outside on her front porch.2 She watched him bend over, take his shirt off and wrap it around his head and face "ninja style" so that only his eyes were uncovered. Defendant then charged through the door with a four-inch knife in his hand. Wearing only a pair of black shorts, defendant charged at Pamela B. and pinned her down on top of the bed. Holding the knife to Pamela B.'s neck, defendant told her that he would not hurt her and that he only wanted her money. Pamela B. screamed.

Baughman was inside her living room and heard the scream. She walked out onto her patio and yelled across the fence, "Pam, are you all right?" Baughman thought she heard a response, but could not understand what Pamela B. had said so she called out again. Defendant still had a knife to Pamela B.'s neck and said, "Shit. Tell her you're okay." Pamela B. did so and Baughman did not come any nearer.

Defendant again told Pamela B. that he wanted her money. Afraid defendant would harm her if she did not comply, she told him where her purse was. Defendant stayed within a foot of Pamela B. while she retrieved her purse and got her money out of it. After defendant took her money, he got upset and asked for the "rest of it." Pamela B. told him that was all she had and defendant rolled the money up and put it in his shorts. The shirt began to fall from defendant's face and, as he tightened it back up, defendant warned Pamela B. not to look at his face. "If you look at my face, I've got to hurt you."

Defendant told Pamela B. he was not done and directed her to get face-down on the bed. Defendant got behind her, put his left arm under her abdomen and pulled her up on her hands and knees. Defendant rubbed her breasts and hips and rubbed his penis against her body. Defendant had a partial erection that he lost when he heard a car drove by. Defendant became angry and said, "Now, you got to suck it." Although terrified, Pamela B. refused. Defendant told her he would not hurt her, pushed her head onto his penis, and then insulted her about the manner in which she was orally copulating him. After defendant obtained an erection, he pulled Pamela B. to her hands and knees, got behind her, threw her nightgown over her head, and put his penis into her vagina.

After defendant ejaculated, Pamela B. ran out the front door. She ran outside her gate and turned left, near her car. Defendant gave chase and cornered Pamela B. by her car. He lunged at her, causing her to scream, at which point defendant ran away. Pamela B. lost sight of defendant.

Pamela B. ran to Baughman's unit and banged on her back door. After Baughman opened the door, Pamela B. entered and called 911. City of Costa Mesa Police Officer Mitchell Johnson responded within minutes. Officer Johnson did not see any cars leave the area and felt that the suspect must still be nearby. He quickly searched the area and set up a perimeter within a block of the location. When Officer Johnson met with Pamela B., she was "borderline hysterical" and crying. After calming her down, Officer Johnson was able to obtain a statement after which he took Pamela B. to the hospital for a sexual assault examination.

While Officer Johnson was obtaining a statement from Pamela B. at the apartment, Baughman was outside and saw defendant. Defendant asked what the police activity was about. Defendant said he had been sleeping on the sofa with his baby and the lights woke him up. Baughman told defendant she would rather not say. Defendant was insistent and, after he inquired several more times, Baughman told defendant Pamela B. had been raped. Defendant said that was terrible and left.

A sexual assault examination showed Pamela B. had suffered an abrasion near her vaginal opening and that there was sperm present in the secretions from her vagina. DNA was extracted from the semen.

After the rape, Pamela B. was in physical pain, could not move her right thumb for a week, and had a large bruise on the side of her thigh. She never slept at her apartment again and moved out at the end of October.

b. Evans's Murder3

On September 27, 1994, the same day defendant assaulted Pamela B., he installed flooring at Marie Powell Evans's new townhouse in Laguna Hills.

On October 13, Evans went to the home of her daughter and son-in-law, Christine and John Hougan, to bring her son-in-law a birthday present. Evans had a dark leather purse with her. Evans left their home at around 8:30 p.m. Around 11:00 a.m. the next morning, Christine received a phone call from Evans's boss, who told her that her mother had not shown up for work that morning, which was highly unusual. The Hougans worked for the City of Newport Beach Police Department, Christine as a police dispatcher and John as a police officer. Christine called someone from work and requested her mother's license plate be run to see if there had been a reported traffic accident. Upon discovering that there was no report of an accident involving Christine's mother, the Hougans went to Evans's house.

They entered Evans's patio area and saw that the window screen was off the kitchen window. John Hougan noticed that dust on the windowsill had been disturbed and a plant had been knocked over into the sink leading him to think someone had crawled in through the window. Upon closer inspection, he observed a large amount of blood and a pillowcase on the kitchen floor. He took his wife back to the car and had her wait while he retrieved his gun and returned to the house. John entered the house through the front door, which was closed, but unlocked. There was a bloody bare footprint on the entryway throw rug that was facing downward toward the stairs. John then went downstairs and, when halfway down, saw Evans's semi-naked body on the floor of the bathroom. After checking the other bedrooms to see if anyone was in the house, he phoned 911.

A rear sliding glass door leading into the master bedroom was found open with the screen door closed; the screen had a cut from top to bottom, leaving an opening large enough for a person to walk through. There was blood on the bed in the master bedroom and signs of a struggle, including a porcelain clock that had been knocked over. In the bathroom next to the master bedroom, Evans was lying on her back with her robe pulled up over her chest. There was blood on the bathroom door, floor, and wall. There was a bloody footprint next to the body and a wet towel, a television, and a pillow on top of Evans's head. The television's cord was plugged into a socket in the master bedroom and the television was still on.

There was a bloody footprint in the kitchen and another at the top of the stairs facing downwards, along with some potting soil. In the living room, there were shelves holding several glass decanters. On one of the shelves, there was a ring-shaped impression in the dust as if something had been taken. On the kitchen counter there was a notepad with the name Eric (the same as defendant's first name) and a phone number, later determined to be defendant's, written on it. Missing from the house were Evans's purse and a glass decanter.

An autopsy showed Evans had suffered multiple major injuries. The autopsy determined she died as a result of bruising to her brain due to blunt force trauma. There were pattern marks on her face between the left eye and ear consistent with a blow from a heavy, patterned object. There were multiple skull fractures and tears in Evans's scalp. Her hands had skin breakage, lacerations, swelling and discoloration, which may have been from an attempt to ward off a blow. There were also marks...

5 cases
Document | California Supreme Court – 2020
People v. Fayed
"...of a defendant’s execution on his or her family may not be considered by the jury in mitigation." ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 601, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) To the extent the prosecution referred specifically to the impact on J.F., its argument was fair comment on J...."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2020
People v. Silveria
"...case to the jury if, upon good cause, the juror is ‘found to be unable to perform his or her duty.’ " ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 621, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) A trial court's decision to remove a juror is reviewed by "asking whether the grounds for such removal app..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2017
People v. Henriquez
"...not provide sufficient cause to deviate from the procedure set out in Penal Code section 190.4. (See also People v. Bennett(2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 600, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 [unitary jury does not violate the federal Constitution].) The trial court also denied defendant's request ..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2021
People v. Steskal
"...her innocence." ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 ; see People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 596, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 [comments do not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the prosecutor does not "state or imply that..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2015
People v. Lloyd
"...the jury, we would normally presume the jury followed the court's admonishment and instruction. (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 595, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) That presumption, however, is ill-suited to the present situation where the prosecutor misstated the law with the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Volume 1 – 2022
Trial defense of dui in California
"...so long as the prosecutor’s questions do not state or imply that the accused has a duty to produce evidence. People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577. PR A CTICE TIP : The admissibility of evidence is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court. If you encounter a prosecutor se..."
Document | Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
"...defense's tactical or strategic decisions do not necessarily violate the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 596 (comment on fact that defense had opportunity to retest prosecution DNA evidence and whether defense did so did not violate attorney-cl..."
Document | Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests – 2021
Discovery and investigation
"...disclosure of a defense test on a semen sample violated the defendant’s right to counsel).] But see, People v. Bennett , (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 577, 596 where the Court held that commenting on the fact that the defense could have retested the sample did not invade the attorney-client privilege...."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Privileges and public policy exclusions
"...Act request did not waive attorney-client and work product privileges, notwithstanding Government Code §6254.5. People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 577, 595, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131. Questions attempting to elicit the fact that DNA evidence was available for retesting by the defense did not v..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...5-C, §2.1.1(1) People v. Bennett, 197 Cal. App. 4th 907, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595 (2d Dist. 2011)—Ch. 5-A, §3.2.2(2)(a) People v. Bennett, 45 Cal. 4th 577, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 (2009)—Ch. 4-B, §3.6.1(3); C, §2.5.2(2)(c)[2]; §4.2.2(4)(e); §5.1; §5.2.1 People v. Bennett, 17 Cal. 4t..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Volume 1 – 2022
Trial defense of dui in California
"...so long as the prosecutor’s questions do not state or imply that the accused has a duty to produce evidence. People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577. PR A CTICE TIP : The admissibility of evidence is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court. If you encounter a prosecutor se..."
Document | Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
"...defense's tactical or strategic decisions do not necessarily violate the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 596 (comment on fact that defense had opportunity to retest prosecution DNA evidence and whether defense did so did not violate attorney-cl..."
Document | Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests – 2021
Discovery and investigation
"...disclosure of a defense test on a semen sample violated the defendant’s right to counsel).] But see, People v. Bennett , (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 577, 596 where the Court held that commenting on the fact that the defense could have retested the sample did not invade the attorney-client privilege...."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Privileges and public policy exclusions
"...Act request did not waive attorney-client and work product privileges, notwithstanding Government Code §6254.5. People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 577, 595, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131. Questions attempting to elicit the fact that DNA evidence was available for retesting by the defense did not v..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...5-C, §2.1.1(1) People v. Bennett, 197 Cal. App. 4th 907, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595 (2d Dist. 2011)—Ch. 5-A, §3.2.2(2)(a) People v. Bennett, 45 Cal. 4th 577, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 (2009)—Ch. 4-B, §3.6.1(3); C, §2.5.2(2)(c)[2]; §4.2.2(4)(e); §5.1; §5.2.1 People v. Bennett, 17 Cal. 4t..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | California Supreme Court – 2020
People v. Fayed
"...of a defendant’s execution on his or her family may not be considered by the jury in mitigation." ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 601, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) To the extent the prosecution referred specifically to the impact on J.F., its argument was fair comment on J...."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2020
People v. Silveria
"...case to the jury if, upon good cause, the juror is ‘found to be unable to perform his or her duty.’ " ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 621, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) A trial court's decision to remove a juror is reviewed by "asking whether the grounds for such removal app..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2017
People v. Henriquez
"...not provide sufficient cause to deviate from the procedure set out in Penal Code section 190.4. (See also People v. Bennett(2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 600, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 [unitary jury does not violate the federal Constitution].) The trial court also denied defendant's request ..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2021
People v. Steskal
"...her innocence." ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 ; see People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 596, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535 [comments do not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the prosecutor does not "state or imply that..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2015
People v. Lloyd
"...the jury, we would normally presume the jury followed the court's admonishment and instruction. (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 595, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535.) That presumption, however, is ill-suited to the present situation where the prosecutor misstated the law with the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex