## 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

1. 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.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the lying-in-wait special circumstance requiring concealment of purpose, a period of watching and waiting, and a surprise attack.
3. Whether asserted instructional and prosecutorial errors at the guilt and penalty phases required reversal of the convictions or death judgment.
4. 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.


People v. Webster, 54 Cal. 3d 411, 814 P.2d 1273 (Cal. 1991)