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

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

__________________________________ )

A Los Angeles County jury convicted Albert Lewis and Anthony Cedric Oliver (defendants or Lewis and Oliver) of the first degree murders of Patrinella Luke and Eddie Mae Lee, and of the attempted murder of Peter Luke. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664.)^[1] The jury sustained allegations that defendants were armed with a firearm (shotgun), personally used a firearm, and personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing the charged crimes. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7.) The jury further found true a multiple-murder special circumstance allegation against each defendant. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death against both defendants. The court denied defendants' motions for a new trial (§ 1181) and to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and sentenced them to death. The present appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

The judgment will be affirmed in its entirety.^[2]

I. FACTS

A. Guilt Phase

Two gunmen, each carrying a shotgun and hooded and dressed in black, raided the Mount Olive Church of God and Christ in Los Angeles on July 21, 1989. While one assailant stood guard and shot at a bystander outside, the other one entered and shot three churchgoers, two of whom died. Defendants were jointly charged with the crimes. They were tried in a single proceeding before the same jury. Oliver was 27 years old at the time of the capital crime. His half-brother, Lewis, was 33 years old at the time.

1. Prosecution Case

The prosecution presented evidence that Lewis, embittered toward his estranged wife, Cynthia Mizell, mounted an escalating campaign of terror against her and her family. It culminated in the murder of her cousin, Patrinella Luke, the wounding and near-killing of Peter Luke, who was Patrinella's husband, and the killing of Eddie Mae Lee, a friend of Mizell's. The evidence also showed that Oliver joined in the campaign of terror and personally committed the murders.

Lewis met Mizell in 1985. At the time, Mizell lived with her parents, Iva Worthen and Edward Worthen, in a four-unit apartment house on 77th Street in Los Angeles. Other family members lived in the same building. They included Mizell's aunt, Betty Bates.

When Mizell and Lewis met, he was living with Jeanett Hudson a short distance away on 77th Street. Lewis told Mizell that Hudson was a friend who, along with her daughter, was staying with him. In fact, Lewis was married to Hudson.

Lewis and Mizell married on June 25, 1988, in a wedding ceremony at the Mount Olive Church. Afterwards, the couple moved to a house on 117th Street. Lewis, who stayed married to Hudson without Mizell's knowledge, soon began to abuse Mizell. In September 1988, he attacked her with a knife, drawing blood, and threatened to kill her. Mizell moved out. Lewis asked her to return to their house. She complied.

In February 1989, Lewis, wearing a black 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.