Facts
- Larry Junior Webster and several companions lived at a riverbank encampment near Sacramento, where Webster acted as the group leader.
- After some group members committed a failed convenience-store robbery and feared imminent police attention, the group discussed leaving town.
- The prosecution’s evidence showed Webster proposed luring a person with a car to the campsite, killing him, and taking the car to flee.
- The group targeted William Burke, a homeless man who had access to a vehicle, and lured him to the encampment under a ruse involving drugs and/or robberies.
- At the campsite, Burke was stabbed to death; the group then took Burke’s car, loaded their belongings, and attempted to leave.
- Police stopped the car for speeding and arrested the group.
- Key prosecution witnesses had credibility issues: one witness had pled guilty to second-degree murder in connection with the homicide, and another testified under a grant of immunity.
Issues
- Whether substantial evidence supported robbery and the robbery-felony-murder special circumstance where the defense claimed the intent to steal arose only after the killing.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the lying-in-wait special circumstance requiring concealment of purpose, a period of watching and waiting, and a surprise attack.
- Whether asserted instructional and prosecutorial errors at the guilt and penalty phases required reversal of the convictions or death judgment.
- Whether habeas allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence stated a prima facie case warranting relief.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, special-circumstance findings, and death sentence.
- The court held there was substantial evidence that the intent to steal preceded or accompanied the fatal force, supporting the robbery conviction and robbery-murder special circumstance.
- The court held the evidence supported the lying-in-wait special circumstance, including concealment of lethal intent and a surprise attack at a prearranged, remote location.
- The court rejected the asserted guilt- and penalty-phase errors as lacking merit or nonprejudicial.
- The court denied habeas relief because the petition did not state facts establishing a prima facie entitlement to relief.
Legal Principles
- Robbery requires proof of a specific intent to steal formed before or during the application of force; an intent formed only after the force is complete is insufficient.
- A robbery-felony-murder special circumstance is supported when the killing occurs in the perpetration of robbery, including where the evidence shows a preexisting plan in which the homicide and taking are part of a continuous course of conduct.
- Lying in wait requires concealment of purpose, a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportunity, and a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim.
- On habeas corpus, relief is unavailable absent a prima facie showing: the petition must allege facts that, if true, would justify relief, including a showing of prejudice where required.
Conclusion
The court upheld Webster’s death judgment, finding the record supported both the robbery-based and lying-in-wait special circumstances and that no guilt- or penalty-phase claim established prejudicial error; it also denied habeas relief for failure to plead a prima facie case.