## Facts

- Sammy Marshall committed separate attacks in Los Angeles against two women, Durneall H. and Sharon Rawls.
- In the attack on Durneall H. (early morning hours), Marshall choked and assaulted her, dragged her toward an abandoned building, threatened to rape and kill her, took her bus pass, and attempted forcible rape; she escaped when a bystander appeared.
- In the later attack on Sharon Rawls, Marshall robbed her, attempted to rape her, and killed her.
- A Los Angeles County jury convicted Marshall of first degree murder, two robberies, two attempted forcible rapes, and kidnapping.
- The jury found true felony-murder special circumstances that the murder occurred during robbery and attempted rape, and returned a death verdict.
- Marshall sought to represent himself at points in the proceedings and also raised complaints concerning appointed counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the robbery and attempted-rape felony-murder special circumstances under Penal Code § 190.2, including the required mental state for death eligibility.
2. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional right of self-representation by denying Marshall’s requests to proceed in propria persona.
3. Whether one of the robbery convictions lacked evidentiary support.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed Marshall’s convictions for first degree murder, one count of robbery, two counts of attempted forcible rape, and kidnapping.
- The court reversed the conviction on the second robbery count.
- The court set aside all felony-murder special-circumstance findings for insufficient evidence of the required mental state.
- Because the special circumstances were set aside, the court reversed the judgment of death.
- The court rejected Marshall’s self-representation claims, concluding his asserted requests were not unequivocal and did not require granting pro se status.

## Legal Principles

- Felony-murder special circumstances under Penal Code § 190.2 require proof beyond the underlying felony; evidence of participation in the predicate felony alone is insufficient to establish death eligibility.
- When the prosecution relies on felony-murder special circumstances, the record must support the mental-state requirement applicable to the defendant’s role (including intent-to-kill principles as applied in California special-circumstance jurisprudence).
- A valid request for self-representation must be timely and unequivocal and must reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel; trial courts may deny requests that are equivocal or that function primarily as dissatisfaction with counsel rather than a clear election to proceed without counsel.
- On appellate review, convictions are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; a conviction must be reversed where the evidentiary record does not support each element of the offense.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court preserved Marshall’s core guilt-phase convictions but reversed one robbery count and held the evidence did not satisfy the heightened mental-state requirements for felony-murder special circumstances, requiring vacatur of the special-circumstance findings and reversal of the death judgment; it also found no violation of the right to self-representation because Marshall’s requests were not unequivocal.


People v. Marshall, 15 Cal. 4th 1 (Cal. 1997)