Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE v. ALBERT LEWIS Part-VI

PEOPLE v. ALBERT LEWIS

Filed 8/24/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) S033436

^v. )

ALBERT LEWIS and )

ANTHONY CEDRIC OLIVER, )

) Los Angeles County

Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. BA001542

_______________________________________ )

Continue from Part V â€¦â€¦.

Of course, the hoods and masks worn by the two men who committed the capital crime at the Mount Olive Church prevented facial identification. However, witness descriptions of the killer's height, weight, and complexion matched Oliver's general appearance. In targeting Mizell and her immediate family for death inside the church (under the mistaken belief they would all be present, including Mizell), Oliver apparently entered and pulled the trigger (as opposed to Lewis), because parishioners were less likely to recognize Oliver (whom they did not know) than Lewis (whom they did know). Oliver had the opportunity in advance to study Mizell's photo album and learn the faces of the family members who were intended as victims.

Two days after the capital crime, Oliver threatened Holt with his Savage shotgun, which the police seized from his car. Forensic evidence conclusively linked Oliver's shotgun to the murders and attempted murder. Oliver's palm print impressions were found on the shotgun. Three shells fired by the same weapon were retrieved from inside the church where the three shootings occurred. The police found a black jacket in Oliver's car similar to clothing that the killer wore. They also found gunshot residue on the jacket. A search of the house Oliver shared with Lewis uncovered fingerless gloves similar to the pair the killer wore while wielding the shotgun inside the church. In light of the foregoing, ample evidence supported the verdicts against Oliver of murder and attempted murder, and the related multiple-murder special circumstance finding.[1]

V. COMPETENCE ISSUES

Lewis and Oliver assert various claims of statutory and constitutional error concerning their mental competence to stand trial. In general, both defendants rely on Penal Code section 1368 and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, Lewis claims the trial court erred in not finding substantial evidence of incompetence to warrant a section 1368 hearing between the guilt and penalty phases. Oliver levels a similar charge. He claims the court ignored substantial evidence of mental incompetence caused by the physical injuries he sustained in the jailhouse stabbing before the penalty phase.

A. Lewis

As noted, on January 20, 1993, after counsel was reappointed, Lewis declined to appear in court because other inmates had made upsetting comments about his mother's death, which had occurred about a year beforehand. The next day, during jury selection, Lewis was belligerent in the courtroom. Counsel told the court that Lewis described himself as a â€

Description	Self-represented defendant may relinquish right to continue representing self in absence of substantial evidence of mental incompetence. Excusal of potential juror for cause in capital case was appropriate where answers to questions about death penalty were equivocal and included statement that potential juror would never vote for death penalty for nonshooter, which prosecution was seeking. Comparative analysis showing that minority venire members were challenged based on responses to questionnaires, while white venire members who gave similar answers were not challenged, did not establish that challenges were racially motivated where jurors were not similarly situated but differed with respect to such characteristics as level of knowledge of the subject matter. The vehemence and consistency or lack thereof with which they asserted views that could be construed as antipolice, antiprosecution, or antideath penalty. Trial court did not violate defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to be present at proceedings by allowing verdict to be read while defendant was hospitalized after being stabbed by another inmate. Where defendant's condition was serious, it was unknown when he would be able to return to court. He suffered no prejudice. Prosecution argument that jurors in penalty phase should take into consideration fact that murders occurred in a church did not constitute improper use of religious imagery. Trial judge is not required to augment record with personal, handwritten notes relied on in denying motion for modification of death penalty verdict.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.