The Supreme Court affirms the death sentence in People v. Frazier for a 2003 murder/rape/sodomy in Concord. As in today’s other capital appeal — People v. Wilson (see here) — the court denies the defendant’s motion for a stay of the appeal and a remand to the superior court for adjudication of claims under the California Racial Justice Act (here and here). Also, like Wilson, the denial in Frazier prompts a two-justice dissent.
The court’s opinion by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero deals with the RJA motion in a footnote. As footnotes go, it’s fairly long, but the RJA discussion spills far less ink than the 32 pages on the issue in the Wilson opinion. Relying on Wilson, the court concludes the “defendant has failed to establish good cause for staying the current appeal.”
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans dissent as to the RJA-motion denial, as they do in Wilson. Justice Evans’s opinion says that the defendant’s motion — where he “alleged that there were significant disparities in capital sentencing based on the race of the victim statewide and in Contra Costa County in particular” — “amply justified why he could not currently present his RJA claim in this appeal” and “explained why relegating him to a petition for writ of habeas corpus to present his RJA claims would be ‘an illusory remedy.’ ”
“[W]hen the Legislature has spoken in a clear voice that courts must promptly address what is widely understood to be this country’s original sin, we should heed its call,” Justice Evans writes.
On the appeal’s merits, as summarized by the court, the opinion rejects the defendant’s claims regarding “(1) the trial court’s excusal of a prospective juror for cause due to the prospective juror’s views on the death penalty; (2) the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for individually sequestered voir dire; (3) the trial court’s giving of a jury instruction on a defendant’s flight from the scene of a crime; (4) the trial court’s denials of defendant’s requests to represent himself during the penalty phase; (5) the trial court’s denials of defendant’s requests to represent himself during the postverdict proceedings; (6) the trial court’s purported violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to choose the objective of his defense; and (7) the legality of the death penalty statute.”
Justice Evans’s opinion also explains her agreement with the part of the court’s opinion holding the defendant, as she puts it, “was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel when counsel presented, over his objection, certain mitigating evidence during the penalty phase.” She identifies an issue about a defendant’s objection to counsel’s choice of penalty phase evidence that is not presented in today’s case, but says, “the stakes surrounding this legal question are extraordinarily high” and could present capital defendants with a “Hobson’s choice.” Justice Liu writes that he’s joining only the RJA portion of Justice Evans’s opinion.