P v. Townsel (Cal. Supreme Ct.) One of Two Special Circumstances Reversed for Instructional Error; Death Verdict Affirmed

Mr. Townsel stalked his estranged pregnant girlfriend eventually killing her and her brother-in-law.  Townsel admitted the killings and stated he "wasn't done yet" during his arrest.  While cuffed and on the ground, the told a witness to "shut up" or "he'll get it too."  He was charged with, among other crimes, two murders, plus the special circumstances of multiple-murders and murdering a witness, along with the crime of dissuading a witness.  A jury found him guilty of all the aforementioned crimes and found true both special circumstances.  The result was a verdict of death from which Townsel appealed.

The California Supreme Court affirms the death verdict, but reverses the dissuasion count and the witness murder special circumstance.

As in all death appeals, the condemned (understandably) launches everything that even resembles a legal projectile.  His most potent grounds involve expert witnesses and mental health issues.  Prior to trial, Townsel's lawyer told the judge he doubted Townsel was competent to stand trial.  The judge appointed two psychiatrists to evaluate Townsel.  Both thought Townsel was faking it, but they differed over whether he was competent.  The parties submitted the competence issue upon the written reports of the psychiatrists and the judge found Townsel was competent.  

During the trial, Townsel called one Dr. Christensen, who had evaluated Townsel some 18 months earlier.  Dr. Christensen measured Townsel's IQ at 47, believed him to be developmentally delayed (the PC term for mental retardation), and thought he was incompetent.  

Townsel argued that upon hearing Dr. Christensen's testimony, the trial judge was in possession of evidence sufficient to require the judge to declare a doubt as to Townsel's competence and order a PC 11370.1 evaluation.  The Court disagrees after reviewing the circumstances of Dr. Christensen's testing (including that it was performed 18 months prior) and comparing the results to that obtained by other mental health professionals.

While instructing the jury, the judge said that the mental health evidence concerning mental retardation could only be considered for purposes of the murder charge.  This was wrong; mental retardation may also be considered for evaluating whether a defendant had the required specific intent as to other crimes and enhancements.  Because the jury was given erroneous instructions that it could not consider Townsel's mental retardation in evaluating the dissuading count and the witness-killing special circumstance, that count and finding are reversed.

However, the multiple-murder special circumstance is affirmed as is the verdict of death.