People v. Riccardi
54 Cal. 4th 758, 281 P.3d 1, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 84 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The erroneous excusal of a prospective juror for cause based on ambiguous or conflicting views concerning the death penalty expressed only in a written questionnaire, without follow-up voir dire, requires automatic reversal of a death sentence.
Facts:
- In 1980, John Alexander Riccardi and Constance 'Connie' Navarro began a romantic relationship.
- In January 1983, after their relationship deteriorated, Connie firmly ended it, leading Riccardi to begin stalking her over the next two months.
- Riccardi engaged in escalating stalking behaviors, including following Connie, making threatening phone calls to a man she met for dinner, breaking into her home, disabling her car, and forcing her to spend a weekend with him at gunpoint.
- In late February 1983, Riccardi broke into Connie's home while her 15-year-old son, David, was present, pointed a gun at David, and handcuffed him in a bathroom.
- On March 3, 1983, after luring Connie back to her home by promising to leave her alone, Riccardi entered her condominium and shot and killed both her and her friend, Susan 'Sue' Jory.
- Riccardi immediately fled Los Angeles, abandoning his possessions and living as a fugitive under various aliases for nearly eight years.
- While a fugitive, Riccardi underwent plastic surgery to alter his appearance.
- Riccardi admitted to his burglary partner, Samuel Sabatino, that he had entered Connie's home through a skylight and shot both women, and he also confessed to the killings in a phone call to his father.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court found John Alexander Riccardi guilty of two counts of first degree murder.
- The jury found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and that one murder was committed during a burglary.
- Following the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty at death.
- The case came before the Supreme Court of California on an automatic appeal from the judgment of death.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by dismissing a prospective juror for cause based solely on her ambiguous and conflicting written questionnaire answers about the death penalty, without conducting in-person voir dire to clarify her views?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.
Yes. The trial court's dismissal of prospective juror N.K. based solely on her written questionnaire was an error requiring automatic reversal of the death sentence. N.K.'s questionnaire answers were conflicting and ambiguous; she expressed general support for capital punishment but also stated she could not feel right imposing it and could not set aside her personal feelings to follow the law. Unlike other properly dismissed jurors who unequivocally stated they would automatically refuse to vote for death, N.K.'s inconsistent responses did not clearly demonstrate that her views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of her duties. Given this ambiguity, the court was required to question her in open court to determine her actual ability to serve. Under the United States Supreme Court's precedent in Gray v. Mississippi, this type of error is not subject to harmless error analysis and compels automatic reversal of the penalty phase. The court affirmed the guilt verdict and one multiple-murder special circumstance but reversed the burglary special circumstance due to instructional error.
Concurring - Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.
Yes, the death sentence must be reversed under Gray v. Mississippi, but the rationale for Gray's rule of automatic reversal is unclear. There is tension between Gray, which requires automatic reversal for the erroneous exclusion of a juror, and Ross v. Oklahoma, which applied harmless error analysis to the erroneous inclusion of a juror whom the defense was forced to remove with a peremptory challenge. Both errors affect the jury's composition, yet they are treated differently. The Chief Justice writes separately to suggest that the United States Supreme Court should provide clarification on the principles underlying these different standards of review for jury selection errors in capital cases.
Concurring - Liu, J.
Yes, the court correctly applied the rule from Gray v. Mississippi. There is no need for clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court because Gray and Ross v. Oklahoma are not in conflict; they address distinct situations. Ross itself distinguished Gray, limiting Gray's automatic reversal rule to the specific context of an erroneous exclusion of a qualified juror, where it is impossible to know if the prosecutor would have used a peremptory challenge on that juror. State and federal courts have consistently and correctly applied Gray in cases of erroneous exclusion and Ross in cases where a defendant uses a peremptory challenge to cure an erroneous inclusion. The law is settled and workable.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the stringent standard for jury selection in capital cases, specifically the rule of automatic reversal for 'Witherspoon-Witt' error established in Gray v. Mississippi. By reversing the death sentence based solely on an ambiguous juror questionnaire without follow-up questioning, the court signals that judicial economy cannot override the need to ensure a juror is unequivocally unable to perform their duties before being dismissed for cause. The decision serves as a critical reminder to trial courts to conduct thorough in-person voir dire whenever a prospective juror's written answers about the death penalty are inconsistent or unclear. It solidifies the principle that any uncertainty about a juror's ability to impose the death penalty must be resolved through direct examination, not assumptions based on a written record.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Riccardi