From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 10, 2008
No. H031413 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ALLEN WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. H031413 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District March 10, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. S910033

Mihara, J.

Richard Allen Williams appeals from an order continuing his involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (Pen. Code, § 2972). In May 2000, appellant was sentenced to state prison based upon his conviction for terrorist threats (Pen. Code, § 422). In March 2001, after serving his sentence, he was committed as a mentally disordered offender (Pen. Code, § 2962). His commitment has been extended yearly since that time. On October 24, 2006, another petition was filed to extend his commitment. A jury found the petition true, and the trial court extended his commitment until March 25, 2008. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. Statement of Facts

Dr. David Niz, staff psychiatrist at Metropolitan State Hospital, testified that appellant was presently suffering from a mixed-type delusional disorder that was both erotomanic and persecutory. Dr. Niz explained that appellant had false beliefs that he had a romantic relationship with others and that he was being persecuted or subjected to higher scrutiny than others. According to Dr. Niz, appellant was also suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depression, which he experienced on occasion due to the stressors in his life, and a “narcissistic” and “grandiose” personality disorder, that is, appellant believed that he knew more than he actually did. In Dr. Niz’s opinion, appellant’s severe mental disorder was not in remission, and thus he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

Dr. Niz based his opinion on appellant’s prior criminal acts and his behavior in custody. Dr. Niz testified that appellant went to Los Angeles where a security officer found him standing in the roadway with a backpack in his hands. Appellant admitted that he had a loaded .357 revolver in his possession. Appellant also had a four-page letter in which he explained his intent to avenge the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman as well as a book entitled Outrage, which discussed the O.J. Simpson trial. Appellant told the security officer that he intended to maim or kill Simpson.

The next incident occurred in November 1999, when appellant was arrested in Capitola. Appellant had gone to a bookstore numerous times during the preceding nine months, and he believed that a female employee was infatuated with him. The store manager warned him to stay away from her, but appellant continued to follow her. After the store manager intervened, appellant repeatedly threatened his life. Appellant eventually vandalized the store manager’s vehicle, and left a shotgun shell and a threatening note. He also placed pieces of wood with protruding nails behind the vehicle’s tires.

When appellant was incarcerated at Jamestown prison, he mistakenly believed a female correctional officer was interested in him. After appellant took notes of his observations of her, the staff ensured that she was not in the same area as appellant. A similar situation occurred in the Santa Cruz County jail. Appellant misinterpreted events involving a correctional officer and believed that she was interested in him.

In December 2006, appellant, who was then at Metropolitan State Hospital, discovered that his compact disc player and pornographic magazines had been thrown away when he was transferred to another unit. He became very angry. He believed that three nurses, including Veronica Day, had conspired to throw away his property. He became obsessive about the loss of his property, and made frequent threats against the nurses, saying “ ‘I will kill you, Bitch,’ ” and “ ‘I’m going to shoot up the 409 nurses’ station with an AK47.’ ” On December 13, 2006, appellant forced his way into the nurses’ station, grabbed Day, pushed her towards the counter, picked up a computer monitor, and threw it on the ground. Appellant was eventually placed in restraints.

Dr. Niz also relied on incidents involving Dr. Michelle White. Dr. White, who was then a psychology intern at the hospital, provided appellant with individual therapy, and he developed an affinity for her. After Dr. White testified against appellant in a prior proceeding, she began receiving “very harassing and vulgar” messages from him. Dr. Niz heard appellant yell, “ ‘Michelle White can suck my cock,’ ” to Dr. White. She became frightened to enter his unit. Appellant’s conduct occurred between July and November 2006.

Appellant also developed an affinity for Shirim Karimi, his social worker. He wrote her a letter in which he demonstrated that he had misinterpreted everyday events as “romantic signals” from Karimi.

Dr. Niz testified about appellant’s interest in guns. Appellant described himself as a gun aficionado. Prior to being in custody, appellant had seven guns registered to him. While in custody, appellant had conversations with his mother and told her that he was unable to buy guns that he saw in magazines, because they do background checks. He also told her that a gun would have to be bought out of state. Noting that appellant had threatened to shoot hospital staff, Dr. Niz was concerned that appellant might obtain a gun if he were on his own and carry out his threats. Dr. Niz pointed out that appellant followed through with his threat to Day, so “now the thoughts and words are followed by behavior.”

Dr. Niz also found that it was significant that appellant had never admitted that he was mentally ill. Without that insight, appellant was unwilling or incapable of remedying his disorders with therapy or medication. Appellant consistently refused to take prescribed anti-psychotic medications.

Karimi, the acting chief of social work at Metropolitan State Hospital, testified that she met appellant in June 2005. She was part of appellant’s treatment team. During a treatment meeting in September 2005, appellant stated that he would strangle Dr. Carolyn Murphy, a psychologist that had previously treated him, for a report that she had written. When appellant made the statement, his affect was “[l]oud, pressured, aggressive, hostile.”

According to Karimi, appellant believed it was Dr. White’s fault that he remained in the hospital. Appellant also referred several times to Dr. White as a “ ‘whore,’ ” a “ ‘bitch,’ ” and that he would like to “ ‘grudgefuck’ ” her. He also believed that Dr. White was responsible for the loss of his personal property.

In August 2006, appellant gave Karimi a letter that stated: “ ‘Hello, Shirim, Sweetheart. Have you heard that my life goal is to be a porn star and that I can’t because my cock isn’t big enough? Yes, you did, because’ the previous doctor, ‘told you and ever since you found me very desirable, to my utter delight. I want you, as well. Let’s get together, please. I need you. I know, it’s about time. I can’t wait, you blazing hot social worker.’ ”

Karimi also testified about the incidents involving the store manager, the correctional officers at the jail and prison, and a staff member at Atascadero State Hospital.

Lisa Rimland, a board certified music therapist, testified that she worked at Metropolitan State Hospital and was part of appellant’s treatment team. Rimland testified that appellant taunted another patient, who was a “very, very ill individual,” who had “an extremely fragile personality.” This patient also walked in an awkward manner that would seem “very strange” to the general public. In front of 40 to 50 people, appellant said, “ ‘Oh, look at him, he’s just such a mess,’ ” and then tried to mimic the way that the patient was walking and talking.

On July 25, 2006, Rimland asked appellant where he was going. Appellant responded by yelling “ ‘Well, why do you need to know that? I can go wherever I want to. So just shut up, Bitch.’ ” On August 8, 2006, appellant was in a current events group when some footage of Condoleezza Rice was shown. Appellant said, “ ‘What they need to do is they need to fucking bomb everybody and that is one dumb bitch.’ ”

Day, a licensed psychiatric technician for 34 years, testified that she had worked at Metropolitan State Hospital for 24 years. Appellant came to her unit about two and a half to three years ago. Appellant began making threats to her, saying “ ‘Fuck you, leave me alone,’ ” and “ ‘Shut the fuck up, I’m going to kick your ass.’ ” Later, he began accusing her of taking his property, “ ‘I know you fucking stole my property, you bitch. Give me my porno mags . . . I know you took them, you fucking bitch. . . . I’m going to fuck you up.’ ” Day denied that she had taken appellant’s magazines.

On December 13, 2006, Day was working as the medication nurse on her unit. Though appellant had been ordered not to have contact with Day, she heard a voice say, “ ‘There you are. I’m going to fuck you up.’ ” She turned around and saw appellant, who said that he was going to kill her. He entered the medication room, grabbed her, threw her across the room, grabbed the computer and keyboard, and threw them on the floor. Day kept screaming that he was going to kill her.

Appellant testified that he was very angry with Day, because he believed that she, Coco, and Dr. White took his magazines. He acknowledged that he had previously threatened Day and that he went to the medication room even though he had been told that he could not be in that unit. Appellant denied, however, that he ever touched Day. His intention was to smash the computer, not to hurt Day. Appellant also volunteered that he had threatened Kathy Winslet, the unit supervisor. Appellant believed that she had conspired with the others to take his property.

Appellant believed that Dr. White’s motive to take his property stemmed from his comment to her at the last proceeding during which he told her that he masturbated while he fantasized about her. He had previously enjoyed Dr. White’s company, but felt betrayed by her testimony. Appellant admitted making vulgar comments to Dr. White.

Appellant explained the incident at the bookstore. Crystal kicked a pen to him from 25 feet away, she stared at him twice, and later brushed against him in the aisle. These incidents indicated that she “was subtly hitting on” him. The manager then banned him from the bookstore. Appellant admitted that he had gone to the bookstore “to retaliate” by “trash[ing] a computer” or “start[ing] a small fire.” Appellant also admitted that he called the manager several times, left threatening messages, vandalized his vehicle, and left a note and a live shotgun shell.

Appellant testified that he liked guns. He used to have seven registered guns and 34 unregistered handguns, rifles and shotguns. He went to the shooting range every Saturday. While he was in jail, appellant had a conversation with his mother in which he discussed a “scenario” in which someone else would buy a gun for him.

Appellant felt bad about what happened to Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. He believed that O.J. Simpson should have been convicted for the double murder. Eventually, appellant decided that O.J. “needed to suffer physically.” He packed a backpack with a .357 magnum, a shoulder holster, water, and snacks, and took a bus to Los Angeles. When appellant was about three miles from O.J.’s house, he “decided to call it off” and was then arrested by a security officer.

Appellant explained his relationship with Karimi. He believed that she became interested in him after he made a joke about being a porn star. He was shocked by her testimony, which made him “look bad.”

Appellant did not believe that he had a mental illness. He did not intend to take medication. He also stated that he had never used a gun against anyone and never would. He did not believe that he was a danger to anyone.

Dr. White, a licensed clinical psychologist, testified that she worked at Metropolitan State Hospital. She was appellant’s therapist for about two and a half months. She had previously testified at a proceeding against appellant. In July 2006, she was no longer appellant’s therapist. However, appellant would follow her around the unit and yell at her. After he tried to approach her, she asked other staff members to escort her in and out of the unit.

II. Discussion

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. He argues that Dr. White’s comment that she was fearful to reveal her personal information deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial.

A. Background

The prosecutor called Dr. White as a witness. After she testified regarding her professional degrees, the following exchange occurred: “[PROSECUTOR]: And can you describe to the jurors where you received those various - - I believed you described having three degrees. Where did you receive those various degrees from? [¶] DR. WHITE: Your Honor, I’m fearful to say the names of my training schools. [¶] [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, can we approach? [¶] (Discussion off record.) [¶] THE COURT: And, [PROSECUTOR], you are going to withdraw the question at this point? [¶] [PROSECUTOR]: I’ll withdraw it. [¶] THE COURT: So ladies and gentlemen - - and [DEFENSE COUNSEL], you are asking that that last comment or issue be stricken? [¶] [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. [¶] THE COURT: So, ladies and gentlemen, you need to deal with what - - as the instructions say, what you are given in this courtroom, what testimony I allow, whatever statements or comments that come from the witness stand that I allow. I’m not trying to say I’m the be-all and end-all, but I’m the one that has to be the referee in this case. So I’ve stricken that last comment, so you’ll ignore it.”

After Dr. White’s testimony, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. Defense counsel argued that Dr. White’s statement was highly prejudicial and the trial court’s admonition was insufficient to “unring the bell.” The prosecutor argued that the motion should be denied, because the statement was quite brief and the trial court’s admonition cured any possible prejudice. The prosecutor also pointed out that the issue for the jury was whether appellant presented a danger to the community, and Dr. White’s comment was cumulative to other evidence of appellant’s numerous threats against Dr. White and others. Following argument, the trial court denied the motion, stating: “I guess, you know, there is an advantage in the requirements of having to do the job of a lawyer for a number of years prior to doing the job of a judge. I have great faith, after watching jurors do what they do over the years, in how well they are able to follow the Court’s direction. [¶] I’m a little surprised that - - I’m not sure that ‘little’ is the correct term - - surprised at the comment, but I think that the curative instruction was and is sufficient. And I believe, having watched jurors do the right thing and follow the Court’s instructions over the years, that it was in fact sufficient.”

The trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 104, which states in part: “If I order testimony stricken from the record, you must disregard it and must not consider that testimony for any purpose.”

B. Analysis

“ ‘A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.’ ” (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1038, quoting People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854.) Thus, we review the denial of a motion for a mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 282.)

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. Dr. White’s comment was brief, and the trial court promptly admonished the jury that it had been stricken. The trial court also correctly informed the jury that it could not consider any testimony that had been stricken. We must presume that the jury understood and followed the trial court’s admonition to disregard Dr. White’s comment. (People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1120.) Moreover, Dr. Niz had already testified about Dr. White’s fear of appellant. In light of this evidence, Dr. White’s comment was not “of such a quality as necessarily prevent[ed] a fair trial.” (Lisenba v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 219, 236.)

III. Disposition

The order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J. McAdams, J.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 10, 2008
No. H031413 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ALLEN WILLIAMS, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Mar 10, 2008

Citations

No. H031413 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)