Case Law People v. Hoyt

People v. Hoyt

Document Cited Authorities (115) Cited in (235) Related

Roger Teich, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster and David F. Glassman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.

Defendant Ryan James Hoyt was convicted of the kidnap and murder of Nicholas Markowitz and sentenced to death. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2000, defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with kidnapping 15-year-old Nicholas Markowitz (who was known as Nick) for ransom or extortion and for murdering him, as well as a personal firearm use enhancement. ( Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B), 209, subd. (a).) Codefendants Jesse James Hollywood, Jesse Rugge, Graham Pressley, and William Skidmore were charged with the same crimes, but the cases were severed and defendant stood trial first. A jury convicted defendant of one count of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187 and one count of kidnapping committed with the personal use of a firearm in violation of Penal Code sections 207 and 12022.5, respectively. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during the course of a kidnapping under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(B). The jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. (Id. , § 1239, subd. (b).)

A. Guilt Phase Prosecution Case

The events that led to Nick’s kidnap and murder stemmed from a feud between Jesse James Hollywood and Nick’s half-brother, Ben, over a drug debt. Ben was supposed to have sold illegal drugs for Hollywood but failed to do so. As a result, Ben owed Hollywood $1,200, and their relationship had soured over this debt. On one occasion, Hollywood retaliated against Ben by running up a tab in the restaurant where Ben’s girlfriend worked and leaving a note saying Ben could pay the bill from the debt he owed Hollywood. For his part, Ben took revenge on Hollywood by telling Hollywood’s insurance company that Hollywood had falsely reported a vehicle stolen. Ben later broke windows in Hollywood’s home. Although there was conflicting testimony about precisely when the windows were broken, one prosecution witness testified the event occurred on August 4, 2000. The next day, Hollywood would inform others that he needed to move because his windows had been "busted out" and people knew where he lived. The day after that, Hollywood arranged to have Nick kidnapped. A few days later, worried about the serious penal consequences if that crime was discovered, Hollywood decided to eliminate Nick.

Hollywood enlisted defendant’s help. Defendant, like Ben, sold drugs for Hollywood, and he also owed Hollywood money. Mutual friends described defendant as the "low man on the totem pole" in their circle. To pay for the drugs he purchased from Hollywood for resale, defendant performed—and was often teased for doing—menial, odd jobs for Hollywood, including yard work, pet care, and housework. According to Brian Affronti, a friend of both defendant and Hollywood, defendant did whatever Hollywood asked of him, without complaint. Defendant agreed to carry out the killing, along with two accomplices, in exchange for financial compensation including the forgiveness of his debt to Hollywood.

Timeline
1. August 5, 2000

The events leading up to the crimes began on Saturday, August 5, 2000, when Casey Sheehan, who also sold marijuana for Hollywood, delivered a van to Hollywood’s West Hills home.1 Hollywood had told Sheehan that Hollywood needed to move because people knew where he lived. When Sheehan arrived at Hollywood’s home, defendant, Skidmore, and one other friend were there, drinking beer and smoking marijuana. Some hours later, Sheehan, Hollywood, and Skidmore met again at Sheehan’s apartment, where Hollywood and Skidmore talked about driving to Santa Barbara for a local party known as Fiesta.

That same evening, Nick returned home a half hour before his midnight curfew. His parents noticed he looked "glazed," his speech was slurred, and he had a bulge in his pocket. When they confronted him, he ran out of the house and did not return for an hour. When he returned, he agreed to speak with his parents in the morning. Nick’s parents worried that he had been getting involved with drugs, in part because Ben was a drug user.

2. August 6, 2000

On the morning of Sunday, August 6, two passersby saw a dark-haired teenager being beaten by four other similar-aged boys in West Hills. Both the assailants and their victim appeared to be Caucasian. When the assailants were done hitting and kicking the dark-haired boy, they threw him into a white van.

Affronti testified that at about 2:00 that afternoon, Hollywood, Skidmore, and their friend Jesse Rugge picked him up in a white van to drive to Santa Barbara for Fiesta. When Affronti entered the van, he saw Nick in the back.

Affronti knew Ben, but he did not initially realize Nick was Ben’s younger brother. Affronti did not know anything was out of the ordinary until Hollywood told Nick "that his brother was going to pay up his money" and "for Nick not to run or anything like that, not to try and do anything irrational."

When the men arrived in Santa Barbara, they stopped at an apartment belonging to Richard Hoeflinger, a longtime friend of Rugge’s. Hollywood asked Affronti to park the van and directed Rugge to make calls from Affronti’s cell phone to unknown recipients. Telephone records also showed that two phone calls were placed that afternoon from Hoeflinger’s home to defendant’s home phone number. Hollywood and Skidmore then went into the apartment with Nick. When Affronti entered after parking the van, he saw Nick in a bedroom with his hands duct-taped in front of him and his shins also taped. Hollywood and Rugge then left for a time; when Hollywood returned, Affronti and Skidmore left in the van.

Hoeflinger, the apartment’s primary tenant, had not seen his friend Rugge for a while before Rugge stopped by on August 6. Rugge asked if he could come in and Hoeflinger readily agreed, but Hoeflinger was surprised when a group—which included Nick—came in with Rugge. Emilio Jelez, Jr., Hoeflinger’s roommate at the time, and their friend Gabriel Ibarra were also at the house when Rugge and others arrived with Nick. Jelez and Ibarra saw Nick sitting in a bedroom of the house with his wrists and ankles bound with duct tape. Ibarra had never met Hollywood, but testified he did not call the police or tell anyone what he had seen because he was afraid of Hollywood after Hollywood walked up to Ibarra, intimated he had a gun, "and pretty much threatened [Ibarra], told [him] that [he] better keep [his] F’ing mouth shut."

At some point that evening, Hoeflinger walked into his bedroom and saw Rugge and Skidmore removing duct tape from Nick’s wrists. Skidmore assured Hoeflinger that everything was " ‘cool’ " and they were " ‘just talking’ " to Nick. Reassured, Hoeflinger left his house less than a half hour later to attend a barbecue. Hoeflinger returned home at dusk to find Nick and Rugge drinking alcohol together in his living room with Nick still unbound. Nick and Rugge then left Hoeflinger’s home together a few hours later.

In the meantime, Affronti and Skidmore drove back to Los Angeles in the white van. Affronti realized en route that he had forgotten his cell phone and returned to Hoeflinger’s home to retrieve it; there he saw Nick and Hollywood still spending time together. Back in Los Angeles, Skidmore dropped Affronti off at home and continued to Hollywood’s house, where he met defendant. Skidmore did not mention Nick. Defendant and Skidmore returned the van to its owner. Defendant and Skidmore walked back to Hollywood’s house, where defendant left Skidmore.

3. August 7, 2000
a. Nick Spends the Day in Santa Barbara

On the morning of August 7, Natasha Adams-Young, then age 17, met Nick at Rugge’s house in Santa Barbara. Adams-Young had been spending time with Rugge that summer. After meeting Nick, Adams-Young spoke with Pressley, a mutual friend of hers and Rugge’s. Pressley told her "that they, quote unquote, kidnapped this kid [Nick] and brought him back up here to Jesse Rugge’s house." The group then caravanned to Adams-Young’s house. Adams-Young, feeling concerned for Nick’s welfare, spoke with Nick, and suggested he was free to leave. Nick declined, explaining to Adams-Young that he planned "to stick around" "to help out his brother and that he was fine."

The group eventually returned to Rugge’s home. Hollywood and his girlfriend, Michele Lasher, met up with the group there. Then-16-year-old Kelly Carpenter, another mutual friend of Adams-Young and Rugge, had met Hollywood the week before and knew that Hollywood, Rugge, and Pressley were involved with selling marijuana. Adams-Young understood that Nick’s presence in Santa Barbara and at Rugge’s home was related to Hollywood in some fashion.

At Rugge’s home, Nick remained in a separate bedroom talking to Rugge. Carpenter overheard Hollywood speaking to his girlfriend about their plans that night and also heard Hollywood talking to others about what he would do with Nick. Hollywood said he might tie Nick up, throw him in the backseat of the car, and then get something to eat. Although it was said in a joking manner, the comment made Carpenter uncomfortable. Carpenter and Adams-Young left Rugge’s house shortly thereafter.

b. Hollywood Confesses the Kidnapping to Sheehan

Sheehan testified that Hollywood and Lasher socialized at Sheehan’s apartment later on the night of August 7, drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana with him. Sheehan conceded he was "probably" "pretty wasted" and...

5 cases
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
People v. Johnson
"...obtained." ( People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610 ( Boyer ); accord, People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 931, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933.) We review Miranda claims under federal constitutional standards. ( People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 440..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2020
People v. Henderson
"...but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.’ " ( People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); accord, People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 305 P.3d 1175.) "Whether counsel..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2021
People v. Chhoun
"...calculations." ( People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 489, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 387 P.3d 1187 ; see People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 954, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); Capers , supra , 7 Cal.5th at pp. 1014–1015, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726.) Further, " ‘the trial co..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
People v. Poore
"...section 190.3, factor (b) does not violate due process or result in cruel and unusual punishment. ( People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 954, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); Bryant, Smith and Wheeler , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 469, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 185, 334 P.3d 573.) As we have ..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
People v. Tran
"...254 P.3d 300.) Nor did Cool address corroboration instructions, and we have upheld them regularly (e.g., People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 946, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ) while rejecting Cool -based challenges to accomplice instructions ( People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
"...and together with other circumstances, may contribute to a finding that a particular confession is involuntary. People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 934; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 840-41, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771; see, e.g., In re Elias..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Jury selection
"...and refrained from improper voir dire. For objecting to improper voir dire by counsel, see §2:130. CASES People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal. 5th 892, 916, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784. A defendant has no right to ask specific questions in voir dire that invite a prospective juror to prejudge the death pe..."
Document | Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
"...1115. But the holding in Verdin continues to apply to cases predating the amendment to Pen. Code §1054.3(b). See People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 941. [3] Rebuttal of defendant's mental-condition evidence. If the defendant introduces evidence of his mental condition at the guilt or pena..."
Document | Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
"...right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unambiguous. See People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1011; People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 932-33. (a) Express waiver. A waiver of Miranda rights can be express. An express statement of waiver, whether written or oral, is usually ..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...1999)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(b)[1][d] People v. Hoyos, 41 Cal. 4th 872, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 162 P.3d 528 (2007)—Ch. 1, §4.5.2 People v. Hoyt, 8 Cal. 5th 892, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 (Cal. 2020)—Ch. 3-B, §8.2.1; Ch. 4-C, §3.4.1(2) (b)[2]; Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(d); C, §2.2.2(2) People v...."

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 | Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
"...and together with other circumstances, may contribute to a finding that a particular confession is involuntary. People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 934; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 840-41, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771; see, e.g., In re Elias..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Jury selection
"...and refrained from improper voir dire. For objecting to improper voir dire by counsel, see §2:130. CASES People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal. 5th 892, 916, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784. A defendant has no right to ask specific questions in voir dire that invite a prospective juror to prejudge the death pe..."
Document | Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
"...1115. But the holding in Verdin continues to apply to cases predating the amendment to Pen. Code §1054.3(b). See People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 941. [3] Rebuttal of defendant's mental-condition evidence. If the defendant introduces evidence of his mental condition at the guilt or pena..."
Document | Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
"...right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unambiguous. See People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1011; People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 932-33. (a) Express waiver. A waiver of Miranda rights can be express. An express statement of waiver, whether written or oral, is usually ..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...1999)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(b)[1][d] People v. Hoyos, 41 Cal. 4th 872, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 162 P.3d 528 (2007)—Ch. 1, §4.5.2 People v. Hoyt, 8 Cal. 5th 892, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 (Cal. 2020)—Ch. 3-B, §8.2.1; Ch. 4-C, §3.4.1(2) (b)[2]; Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(d); C, §2.2.2(2) People v...."

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 – 2022
People v. Johnson
"...obtained." ( People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610 ( Boyer ); accord, People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 931, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933.) We review Miranda claims under federal constitutional standards. ( People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 440..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2020
People v. Henderson
"...but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.’ " ( People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); accord, People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 305 P.3d 1175.) "Whether counsel..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2021
People v. Chhoun
"...calculations." ( People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 489, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 387 P.3d 1187 ; see People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 954, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); Capers , supra , 7 Cal.5th at pp. 1014–1015, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726.) Further, " ‘the trial co..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
People v. Poore
"...section 190.3, factor (b) does not violate due process or result in cruel and unusual punishment. ( People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 954, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ( Hoyt ); Bryant, Smith and Wheeler , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 469, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 185, 334 P.3d 573.) As we have ..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
People v. Tran
"...254 P.3d 300.) Nor did Cool address corroboration instructions, and we have upheld them regularly (e.g., People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 946, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933 ) while rejecting Cool -based challenges to accomplice instructions ( People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, ..."

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