P. v. Hayes

Filed 8/2/06 P. v. Hayes CA2/8

Opinion following remand

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lance A. Ito, Judge. Affirmed; petition denied.

Mark D. Lenenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order of June 14, 2006, we vacate our decision in this case, filed May 9, 2005, and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Shabazz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 55.

Henry C. Hayes is appealing his conviction for two counts of murder and a multiple-murder special circumstance. He contends that (1) there was prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (2) evidence of his financial condition was erroneously admitted; (3) review is necessary of the in camera Pitchess proceedings (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)); (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (5) the trial court improperly modified a CALJIC instruction regarding the credibility of a child witness; (6) the cumulative effect of the individual errors resulted in prejudice; and (7) imposition of firearms use enhancements and a parole revocation fine were improper, when he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The above issues were raised in the opening brief, which was filed by appellant's counsel. Prior to the filing of that brief, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, No. B171536, in propria persona. We ordered that the petition be considered along with the direct appeal. The People filed an informal response to it, and appellant filed a reply in propria persona.

We affirm the conviction and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant was charged with the murders of his wife and daughter (counts 1 and 2). Both counts included a multiple-murder special circumstance. Count 3 alleged assault on a child, causing death. All of the counts included an allegation that he caused death by personally discharging a firearm.

At the guilt phase, the jury found appellant guilty as charged. A mistrial was declared at the penalty phase after the jury deadlocked. The prosecution did not proceed further with the penalty phase.

Appellant was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, plus 50 years to life in prison. The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and stayed a $10,000 parole revocation fine. This appeal followed.

FACTS

1. Prosecution Testimony

A. Appellant's Motives

The prosecution presented strong evidence that appellant murdered his wife Vangela Hayes and seven-year-old daughter Teanna Hayes during the early morning hours of Friday, August 27, 1999, for a combination of motives: love affairs with other women; avoidance of a disclosure of infidelity, which would spoil his chance to be pastor of a larger congregation; and financial difficulties that would be resolved by life insurance benefits.

i. Extramarital Affairs

When Vangela was killed in 1999, she and appellant had been married for eight or nine years.

In 1990, appellant began paying a prostitute named Cassandra for sex. Around the second year of their relationship, he told her that he was married. After a couple of years, they continued to have sex, but he no longer paid her. At one point they broke off their relationship for about two years. They resumed it in 1997. After that, she considered herself to be appellant's girlfriend. She attended numerous events where he preached, but they kept their relationship a secret. He told her he was planning to divorce Vangela so that he could marry her. She became pregnant with his child in March or April 1999. He told her that it was her decision whether or not to have the baby.

Francesca was another prostitute with whom appellant paid for sex, beginning in 1996. Before that relationship had gone on very long, Francesca went to jail. Appellant visited her there. He told her he was a salesman, and never told her that he was a minister.

Lea met appellant when he was one of the ministers of Progress Baptist Church. When appellant started the Family of Christ Church, she became the church secretary there. Appellant made a â€