Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of pandering in violation of Penal Code section 266i, subdivision (a)(2), which defined pandering as encouraging "another person to become" a prostitute. At issue was whether subdivision (a)(2) applied when the target was already a prostitute or an undercover police officer acting as one. The court held that subdivision (a)(2) included encouragement of someone who was already an active prostitute or undercover police officer and disapproved People v. Wagner and People v. Montgomery to the extent that they were inconsistent with the opinion. The court also rejected defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence that he encouraged anyone to become a prostitute where the undercover officer testified that he offered his services as pimp by telling her he would provide her with protection, housing, and clothing if she turned her earnings over to him and where defendant twice identified himself as a pimp, assured the officer that she could continue to work in the same area, and promised he would "take care of her."

Defendant was convicted, among other things, for murder and sentenced to death after robberies at two McDonald's restaurants. Defendant raised jury selection issues, evidentiary issues, prosecutorial misconduct issues, issues related to counsel, instructional issues, and issues related to the prejudicial "spillover" effect of errors. Defendant also asserted error in admission of victim impact evidence and challenged the constitutionality of California's death penalty law. The court rejected defendant's argument that the cumulative effect of the guilt and penalty phase of errors required reversal of his conviction and death sentence when no single error compelled reversal and held that, whether considered singly or in combination, any error or assumed error was nonprejudicial.