Case Law The People v. Alexander

The People v. Alexander

Document Cited Authorities (116) Cited in (1104) Related
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Susan Ten Kwan and Joseph Chabot, Deputy State Public Defenders; and Thomas Kallay, Burbank, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Sharlene A. Honnaka, Richard T. Breen, Keith H. Borjon, John R. Gorey and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, J.

On June 4, 1980, Julie Cross, an agent of the United States Secret Service, was murdered in the line of duty. Over a decade later, defendant Andre Stephen Alexander was charged with Cross's murder. In 1996, a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187),1 and found true allegations that he personally used a firearm and that a principal was armed with a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (a)). The jury also found true special circumstance allegations that defendant previously had been convicted of murder ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(2)) and that the murder of Cross had been committed in the course of a robbery ( § 190.2, subd. (a) (17)). At the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial and the automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict ( § 190.4, subd. (e)), and it imposed the death sentence. Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. Facts
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence
a. Commission of the Murder

On the evening of Wednesday, June 4, 1980, Secret Service Agents Julie Cross and Lloyd Bulman were part of a team of agents planning to serve a search warrant on a suspected counterfeiter's residence. The two were partners whose role was to prevent the suspect's escape should he try to flee when the warrant was served. They were seated in an unmarked car near the corner of Belford Avenue and Interceptor Street near the Los Angeles International Airport; Bulman was in the driver's seat, and Cross was in the front passenger's seat. Both were dressed in civilian clothes.

The agents' vehicle contained a police radio and a 12-gauge shotgun with the standard Secret Service modifications of a shortened barrel, a pistol grip, and a folding stock. A guard attached to the barrel inhibited a person from placing a hand in front of the muzzle when firing the gun. This guard was unique to shotguns the Secret Service used because it was permanently, as opposed to temporarily, attached. On the night of the murder, the shotgun was loaded with four rounds: the first and third were slugs; the second and fourth were buckshot.

Bulman testified that, at some point before it became dark, a large, brown, two-door car with a lighter colored roof and rust spots on the body slowly drove past the agents. The two African-American men in the car looked at the agents as they drove by. The driver was neatly groomed and had a mustache. The passenger wore a stocking cap and also had a mustache. Several minutes later, the same car with the same occupants again slowly drove by, this time parking a short distance away. The two men left the car and walked out of sight between an apartment building and a garage. Two to three minutes later, they returned to the car and drove away.

A short time later, after it was dark outside, Cross told Bulman she saw someone coming up behind the agents' car. The agents drew their sidearms from their holsters, and Cross got out of the car. As Bulman turned to open his door, he saw someone approach the rear of the car on the driver's side. Before Bulman could exit the car, the person opened the door and pointed a revolver at Bulman's head. Bulman recognized the man, who was wearing a black leather jacket, as the driver of the brown car. The driver 2 told Bulman to raise his hands. After putting his pistol on the seat, Bulman raised his hands and identified himself as a police officer. The driver said he also was a police officer, but refused Bulman's request to allow Bulman to show his badge. He ordered Bulman to tell Cross to drop her weapon; instead, Bulman told Cross not to do so. While the driver had the revolver pressed against Bulman's temple, forcing his head toward the seat, Bulman heard Cross say, “What are you doing? Get your hands back up on the car.” Bulman could not see what was happening on the other side of the car.

Several seconds later, another man appeared at the driver's door. Bulman could not see clearly who he was. While bent over, Bulman tried to use the police radio, but it did not work because the car's ignition was not turned on. Bulman again identified himself as an officer and mentioned the police radio as proof. Saying, He's got a radio,” the second man reached into the car, removed the keys from the ignition, and knocked the radio's microphone from Bulman's hand. That man then noticed the shotgun on the floor in the front of the car, said something like, “What do we have here,” and took the shotgun.

Bulman testified that, almost immediately after the man with the shotgun left the driver's door and went behind the car, Cross jumped into the car through the front passenger's door. She went over the seat into the back, a panicked look on her face. A shotgun blast then came through the open passenger's door, the shot traveling across Bulman's lap and out through the driver's door.

Bulman grabbed the revolver pressed to his head and wrestled his way out of the car. As he did so, the driver fired the gun, but the bullet did not hit Bulman. While Bulman and the driver struggled on the street, Bulman heard two more shotgun blasts coming from the agents' car. The driver fired several more shots from the handgun during the struggle, but again Bulman was not hit. The struggle continued for three or four car lengths in front of the agents' car in the middle of Interceptor Street until the driver said, “Shoot the son of a bitch.” After Bulman heard another person say, “I can't. You're in the way,” Bulman saw the passenger aiming the agents' shotgun at him. The passenger was wearing a dark stocking cap and a dark-colored jacket.

Bulman and the driver next wrestled in the opposite direction, behind and past the agents' car, each trying to put the other's body towards the shotgun as the passenger tried to get a clear shot at Bulman. Near the corner of Interceptor and Belford, Bulman lost his balance and fell. As Bulman tried to get up, the passenger ran over and put the shotgun muzzle about six inches from Bulman's head. The passenger fired the weapon, but the shot missed Bulman and hit the pavement. The assailants then ran off.

When he realized he had not been shot, Bulman went to the car to get his pistol and check on Cross. She was lying on the back seat and had no pulse. Bulman ran to a Secret Service surveillance van parked nearby. He and Agent Terry Torrey, who was stationed in the van, then drove back to the car. Bulman did not see the shotgun, the keys to the agents' car, or Cross's pistol again.

Bulman was interviewed by agents that night and on numerous occasions in the following days, months, and years. He worked with a police sketch artist on June 6, 1980, and completed composite drawings of the suspects that were introduced into evidence at trial. Several of the interview sessions involved attempts to hypnotize Bulman in the hope of helping him to remember other details of the crime.

At a live lineup conducted on June 27, 1980, Bulman identified one subject, Terry Brock, as looking similar to the driver, the man with whom Bulman had struggled, except the person in the lineup had a beard. Bulman was unable to identify defendant Alexander as the passenger who fired the shotgun during a live lineup conducted on April 19, 1990, at the preliminary hearing, or at the trial. However, at trial, Bulman testified a picture of defendant Alexander taken around 1980 looked “closest” to the person with the shotgun, who was depicted on the left side of the composite sketch trial exhibit.

Agent Torrey testified that, minutes before Bulman ran to the surveillance van, he had seen a medium- to dark-colored car speeding on Belford Avenue with its lights off.

Wayne Dhaler was driving his car at the intersection of Belford and Interceptor at 9:00 p.m. the night of the murder. He testified he saw two men, one wearing a tan or brown jacket, leaning into the driver's side door of a car parked on the street.

Alvin Borges drove by the same area at about the same time. He testified he saw two African-American men fighting with a White man who was on the ground. Borges saw one of the men shoot the man on the ground at almost point-blank range with a shotgun. The shooter, who used his right hand to pull the trigger and his left to hold the barrel, was wearing a brown, waist-length jacket. Borges testified the jacket later seized from defendant's parents' home “could be consistent” with the one the shooter had worn.

Harry Zisko testified he heard shots that evening while in his Belford Avenue apartment. He saw two men running down the street, one carrying a two-inch diameter cylinder that was between one and one and a half feet...

5 cases
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2015
People v. Denard
"...confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2017
Jernigan v. Edward
"...evidence in its possession where it is reasonable to expect the evidence would play a significant role in the defense.' [(People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 878 [emphasis] added by Velasco.)] There is no evidence that the state ever possessed the shorts. It is axiomatic that the con..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
People v. Hernandez
"...court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular." ’ " (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 870, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873.)8 Hernandez argued at the evidentiary hearing in the superior court that he did not know, and could not reas..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2020
People v. Xiong
"...effect of confusing the jury or relieving it from making findings on relevant issues." ’ " ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 920-921, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 ( Alexander ).)C. Analysis The purpose of the bracketed language in CALCRIM No. 358 is to aid the jury in evalua..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2018
People v. Kerley
"...in the record that, if believed by the jury, would sufficiently support the suggested inference.’ " ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 921, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873.)On appeal, the People argue that there was sufficient evidence to support the instruction. In support of t..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | California Objections – 2023
Hearsay
"...When the witness has been excused, the statement is inadmissible if the witness was not asked about it. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 909, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. PR A CTICE TIP Consider waiting to confront a witness with an inconsistent statement. It may be desirable to wait t..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Jury selection
"...the jury is questioned on an issue that ultimately is not submitted to the jury due to a failure of proof. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 900, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. The court has no obligation to question the jury regarding racial bias unless asked to do so by a party, even if..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Privileges and public policy exclusions
"...2 Cal. 5th 544, 560, 214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 (in-person communications monitored by correctional officers); People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 884, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (telephone communications monitored by law enforcement). Scope. The attorney client privilege covers all forms of ..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Relevance and prejudice
"...7. Court’s Discretion. The court is vested with wide discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 904, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. The reviewing court will find an abuse of discretion only when there is a clear showing that the court exceede..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...4-A, §4.1.4 People v. Alderrou, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1074, 236 Cal. Rptr. 740 (2d Dist. 1987)—Ch. 4-C, §8.4.3(1)(b) People v. Alexander, 49 Cal. 4th 846, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 (2010)—Ch. 1, §2.2; §4.8.6; §5.4.1; Ch. 3-B, §5.2.2(1); §10.2.2(2); §12.2.2(2)(b); §20.2.5(1)(b)[4] Peopl..."

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 | California Objections – 2023
Hearsay
"...When the witness has been excused, the statement is inadmissible if the witness was not asked about it. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 909, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. PR A CTICE TIP Consider waiting to confront a witness with an inconsistent statement. It may be desirable to wait t..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Jury selection
"...the jury is questioned on an issue that ultimately is not submitted to the jury due to a failure of proof. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 900, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. The court has no obligation to question the jury regarding racial bias unless asked to do so by a party, even if..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Privileges and public policy exclusions
"...2 Cal. 5th 544, 560, 214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 (in-person communications monitored by correctional officers); People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 884, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (telephone communications monitored by law enforcement). Scope. The attorney client privilege covers all forms of ..."
Document | California Objections – 2023
Relevance and prejudice
"...7. Court’s Discretion. The court is vested with wide discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant. People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 904, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190. The reviewing court will find an abuse of discretion only when there is a clear showing that the court exceede..."
Document | Table of Cases
Table of Cases null
"...4-A, §4.1.4 People v. Alderrou, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1074, 236 Cal. Rptr. 740 (2d Dist. 1987)—Ch. 4-C, §8.4.3(1)(b) People v. Alexander, 49 Cal. 4th 846, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 (2010)—Ch. 1, §2.2; §4.8.6; §5.4.1; Ch. 3-B, §5.2.2(1); §10.2.2(2); §12.2.2(2)(b); §20.2.5(1)(b)[4] Peopl..."

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 Court of Appeals – 2015
People v. Denard
"...confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2017
Jernigan v. Edward
"...evidence in its possession where it is reasonable to expect the evidence would play a significant role in the defense.' [(People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 878 [emphasis] added by Velasco.)] There is no evidence that the state ever possessed the shorts. It is axiomatic that the con..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
People v. Hernandez
"...court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular." ’ " (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 870, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873.)8 Hernandez argued at the evidentiary hearing in the superior court that he did not know, and could not reas..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2020
People v. Xiong
"...effect of confusing the jury or relieving it from making findings on relevant issues." ’ " ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 920-921, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873 ( Alexander ).)C. Analysis The purpose of the bracketed language in CALCRIM No. 358 is to aid the jury in evalua..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2018
People v. Kerley
"...in the record that, if believed by the jury, would sufficiently support the suggested inference.’ " ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 921, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 235 P.3d 873.)On appeal, the People argue that there was sufficient evidence to support the instruction. In support of t..."

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