## Facts

- Justin James Merriman was prosecuted for the 1992 first degree murder of 16-year-old Katrina Montgomery.
- The prosecution alleged Merriman killed Montgomery during the commission of sexual offenses (rape and oral copulation), supporting felony-murder and special-circumstance allegations.
- Merriman and Montgomery were associated with a Ventura County white supremacist gang; the case included evidence of their connections and Merriman’s later conduct.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of Merriman’s later sexual assaults and witness-dissuasion offenses as part of a consolidated trial.
- A jury convicted Merriman of first degree murder, found true the rape and oral-copulation special circumstances and a deadly-weapon-use allegation, and also convicted him of multiple noncapital sex and witness-dissuasion crimes.
- After a penalty phase, the jury returned a death verdict; the trial court denied a new trial and sentence-modification motions and imposed death plus an additional determinate term on the noncapital counts.
- Merriman obtained automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated due process by joining the murder charge with later noncapital sexual-assault and witness-dissuasion counts and denying severance.
2. Whether the admission of other sexual-offense evidence (including later assaults) was proper under Evidence Code sections 1101(b) and/or 1108, and whether it should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 or due process principles.
3. Whether jury selection was constitutionally defective, including challenges under Batson/Wheeler and to death-qualification rulings.
4. Whether the evidence and instructions supporting felony murder and the special-circumstance findings were legally sufficient and free of prejudicial error.
5. Whether penalty-phase rulings and argument, including aggravating evidence and proportionality challenges, required reversal of the death judgment.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, including the convictions and the death sentence.
- The court held joinder was authorized and the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion and did not result in undue prejudice.
- The court upheld admission of other sexual-offense evidence as relevant and properly limited, and concluded the trial court acted within its discretion under Evidence Code section 352.
- The court rejected Batson/Wheeler and death-qualification claims, finding no reversible error in the handling of peremptory challenges or for-cause excusals.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to support guilt and special-circumstance findings and found no instructional errors warranting relief; any minor imperfections were harmless.
- The court rejected penalty-phase challenges, concluding the aggravating evidence and argument did not require reversal and the death sentence was not disproportionate under governing standards.

## Legal Principles

- Joinder is permitted under Penal Code section 954 when offenses are of the same class or otherwise connected; severance requires a clear showing of prejudice, reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Other-crimes evidence may be admitted under Evidence Code section 1101(b) to prove matters such as intent or common plan, subject to exclusion under Evidence Code section 352 if undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- Evidence Code section 1108 permits admission of sexual-offense propensity evidence in qualifying prosecutions, also subject to Evidence Code section 352 balancing and limiting instructions.
- Batson/Wheeler challenges proceed under a three-step framework requiring an inference of discrimination, race-neutral reasons, and a determination of purposeful discrimination based on the record.
- In capital cases, a prospective juror may be excused for cause if views on the death penalty would substantially impair performance of juror duties.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in the context of the entire charge for a reasonable likelihood of juror misunderstanding; errors are assessed for prejudice under applicable state and federal harmless-error standards.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court sustained Merriman’s murder conviction and death sentence, concluding that the consolidated trial, admission of other-sex-offense evidence, jury-selection rulings, instructions, and penalty-phase proceedings were within legal bounds and did not deny due process or require reversal.


People v. Merriman, 60 Cal. 4th 1 (Cal. 2014)