People v. Palmer

103 Cal.Rptr.2d 13

24 Cal.4th 856

15 P.3d 234

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Floyd Maurice PALMER et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S085029.

Supreme Court of California.

January 18, 2001.

Patrick Morgan Ford, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Floyd Maurice Palmer.

Michael Satris, Bolinas, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant Donald Edmond Price.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey W. Koch, Robert M. Foster and Gary W. Brozio, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, J.

We granted review to decide whether the so-called rule of consistency— that the acquittal of all alleged coconspirators but one requires acquittal of the remaining alleged conspirator—requires the reversal of a conspiracy conviction in this case, and whether similar principles require the reversal of a finding as to one but not both codefendants that an attempted murder was premeditated. We conclude that the rule of consistency is a vestige of the past with no continuing validity. Many reasons may explain apparently inconsistent verdicts: lenience, compromise, differing evidence as to different defendants, or, possibly, that two juries simply viewed similar evidence differently. If substantial evidence supports a jury verdict as to one defendant, that verdict may stand despite an apparently inconsistent verdict as to another defendant.

In this case, substantial evidence supports the conspiracy conviction and the premeditation finding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed this conviction and this finding.

I. Factual and Procedural History

On December 11, 1996, codefendants 15 year old Floyd Maurice Palmer and 29 year old Donald Edmond Price engaged in a crime spree, only part of which is relevant to the issues now before us.

As relevant here, the evidence at trial showed that early that morning, Price was driving his blue Chevrolet Nova, with Palmer in the passenger seat. Price drove past Richard Humphries, who was driving a red Ford Escort, moved in front of him, and slowed down so that Humphries had to pass him. Price pulled alongside Humphries, and Palmer fired one shot with a black .25 caliber semiautomatic handgun. The bullet broke Humphries's driver's side window and grazed his scalp. Humphries tried to speed away, but Price pulled alongside him again. Humphries slammed on his brakes. Palmer fired a second shot, breaking Humphries's left rear window and striking a door post. Price stopped, then started to back up. Humphries got away by turning around and driving on the wrong side of the divided highway. Price testified that he did not know Palmer had a gun or was going to shoot Humphries. He said Palmer fired only one shot, after which he slammed on the brakes. He denied pursuing Humphries. Palmer testified that Price gave him the gun and told him to shoot, hitting him across the mouth when he refused. He then fired once or twice but, he said, without aiming at Humphries or intending to kill him.

A couple of hours later, Price, now driving a stolen pickup truck, sideswiped Judith Showalter's 1996 BMW. Both drivers stopped. Price got out of the truck and apologized to Showalter, saying his brakes had locked. Palmer also got out of the truck. He went to Showalter's car, opened the door, said, "take this, bitch," then shot Showalter in the head. She slumped over and played dead. The two men took her pager and purse. One of them pulled her out of the car and left her on the ground. They drove away in the BMW, leaving behind the truck and other property they had stolen that morning. Showalter survived despite suffering major injuries. The bullet had entered her head near the left eye and exited at the right earlobe. Price testified that he and Palmer had agreed to rob Showalter, but he denied knowing Palmer would shoot her. Palmer denied knowing that Price was going to sideswipe Showalter's car or rob her. He testified that Price forced him to shoot Showalter, but he did not intend to kill her.

Price and Palmer each gave statements to the police implicating the other. The prosecution charged them together for these crimes and argued it would be too stressful for Showalter to have to testify at separate trials. For these reasons, the trial court ordered them tried together but by two separate juries. During the trial, Palmer chose to have his jury hear Price's pretrial statements. After Palmer had testified in his own defense, Palmer's pretrial statements were admitted in rebuttal. Accordingly, in the end, both juries heard essentially the same evidence.

Among other charges, the prosecution charged both Price and Palmer with attempted murder of Humphries, alleged to have been premeditated (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 664), and conspiracy to murder Showalter (Pen.Code, §§ 182, 187, subd. (a)). Price's jury found him guilty of all charges and found the premeditation allegation true. Palmer's jury found him guilty of the other charges and of attempting to murder Humphries, but it found the premeditation allegation not true and found him not guilty of conspiracy to murder Showalter. The court sentenced both defendants to state prison.

Both defendants appealed. Price argued that the premeditation finding and conspiracy conviction had to be reversed in light of the different verdicts the other jury made as to Palmer. In an opinion authored by Justice Richli, the Court of Appeal modified the judgments slightly, but otherwise affirmed them. It rejected Price's arguments regarding the premeditation finding and conspiracy conviction. The court recognized that current California authority supports the general rule that the acquittal of all but one alleged coconspirator requires the acquittal of the remaining one. In a comprehensive analysis, it expressed doubt that the rule remains valid but, partly because the California authority includes dicta from this court, it ultimately concluded that "stare decisis counsels us to acquiesce." Nevertheless, it found that the rule applies only to defendants tried together before a single jury, not to defendants tried separately or, as here, together but before separate juries. Accordingly, it upheld the verdicts in this case. The court also stressed that it acquiesced in the rule of consistency "only reluctantly. We believe the entire topic of inconsistent verdicts against coparticipants is ripe for reexamination—and revision—by the Supreme Court."

Both defendants petitioned for review. We granted Price's petition, limited to whether the verdicts as to codefendant Palmer require reversal of Price's conspiracy conviction and premeditation finding.

II. Discussion

Price argues that, because it takes at least two to conspire, the verdict finding Palmer, his only alleged coconspirator, not guilty of conspiracy is inconsistent with his conviction for the same conspiracy. This inconsistency, he further argues, requires us to reverse that conviction. He makes a similar argument regarding the premeditation findings. We disagree. The conspiracy verdicts, if not the premeditation findings, are indeed inconsistent, but both may be given effect. The law generally accepts inconsistent verdicts as an occasionally inevitable, if not entirely satisfying, consequence of a criminal justice system that gives defendants the benefit of a reasonable doubt as to guilt, and juries the power to acquit whatever the evidence.

The United States Supreme Court has embraced this general rule. "Inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside. We have so held with respect to inconsistency between verdicts on separate charges against one defendant, Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932), and also with respect to verdicts that treat codefendants in a joint trial inconsistently, United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 279, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943)." (Harris v. Rivera (1981) 454 U.S. 339, 345, 102 S.Ct. 460, 70 L.Ed.2d 530, fns. omitted.) California law is similar. "An acquittal of one or more counts shall not be deemed an acquittal of any other count." (Pen.Code, § 954; see People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903, 911, 35 Cal. Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81; People v. Pahl (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1651, 1656-1657, 277 Cal.Rptr. 656.) "The fact that certain defendants may escape conviction for their crimes is not any legal or logical reason why another defendant, where substantial evidence has been introduced to sustain his conviction, should be exonerated and be permitted to escape punishment for his crime." (People v. Taylor (1948) 88 Cal. App.2d 983, 987-988, 199 P.2d 751.) Accordingly, "The general rule is that acquittal of one codefendant normally will not require acquittal of another." (People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 412, 243 Cal.Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279.)

Price relies on an exception to this general rule: the rule of consistency in conspiracy cases. Although the rule has deep common law roots (see, e.g., United States v. Espinosa-Cerpa (5th Cir.1980) 630 F.2d 328, 332-333, fn. 5), it first appeared in California in People v. James (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 14, 10 Cal.Rptr. 809. The rule and its rationale were summarized in People v. Nunez (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 214, 218, 228 Cal.Rptr. 64: "When two or more alleged coconspirators are jointly tried, it is generally held that acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of the remaining defendant. This result is compelled by the rule of consistency of verdicts because, as Justice Cardozo once noted, `It is impossible in the nature of things for a man to conspire with himself.' (Morrison v. California (1934) 291 U.S. 82, 92[ 54 S.Ct. 281, 78 L.Ed. 664]; ...)"

After People v. James, supra, 189 Cal. App.2d 14, 10 Cal.Rptr....