Page 1
High Court Upholds Death Sentence, Finding Rejection of Eyewitness Testimony Harmless
Chief Justice Says Testimony Should Have Been Admitted at Penalty Phase Because
Witness Was Unavailable During Guilt Phase, but Evidence of Guilt Overpowering
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday upheld a death sentence in a murder case over the protest of two justices that the trial judge prejudicially erred in disallowing testimony at the penalty phase of an eyewitness who recalls the shooter as being slim, which fits the description of the codefendant, while the appellant weighs in excess of 300 pounds.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said that Orange Superior Court Judge James A. Stotler did err in barring the testimony of the witness, Matthew Towne, who could not be located by the defense to testify at the guilt phase but was available to tell what he saw at the second phase where jurors were asked by the prosecution to recommend a sentence of death for defendant Tupoutoe Mataele.
Cantil-Sakauye said:
“Towne’s testimony would have been relevant and admissible at the guilt phase, but he could not be located. And because he did not testify at the guilt phase, his testimony at the penalty phase cannot be deemed cumulative or a waste of judicial resources.”
Explains Harmlessness
However, she declared, the error was harmless, noting that another eyewitness testified as to poor lighting conditions. The chief justice wrote:
“[W]e can assume that Towne would have testified that for a few seconds, and from across a dark parking lot in the middle of the night, he saw a shooter of a thin or medium build with black skin wearing a cap.”
She declared that “this evidence pales in comparison to the evidence at the guilt phase, properly considered at the penalty phase as circumstances of the case, establishing defendant’s guilt.”
Towne’s statements to police were properly excluded as hearsay at the guilt phase, she said.
Liu’s Opinion
Justice Goodwin H. Liu wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined in by Justice Leondra Kruger. He maintained:
“…The erroneous exclusion of Towne’s testimony can be found harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that absent the error, the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, including lingering doubt, would have led one or more jurors to vote for life imprisonment without parole instead of death. Although my colleagues are confident there is no such possibility, I am not. Given the circumstances of this capital sentencing trial, it is hard to think of evidence more potentially consequential than eyewitness testimony identifying someone other than the defendant as the actual killer. It is reasonably possible that one or more jurors would not have been certain beyond all possible doubt that Mataele was the shooter and, on that basis, would have refrained from voting for death.”
Justice Joshua P. Groban wrote a concurring opinion.
A limited remand was ordered to permit the Superior Court to decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion under new legislation to strike firearms enhancements. In addition to imposing a death sentence for murder, Stotler sentenced Mataele to life imprisonment plus nine years on his conviction for attempted murder count, with that sentence taking into account the firearm enhancements and a prior serious felony conviction.
The case is People v. Mataele 2022 S.O.S. 3160.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company