IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
`CALIFORNIA
`
`
`THE PEOPLE,
`
`Plaintiff and Respondent,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT MAURICE BLOOM,
`
`Defendant and Appellant.
`
`
`
`S095223
`
`
`
`Los Angeles County Superior Court
`
`A801380
`
`
`
`
`
`April 21, 2022
`
`
`
`Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which
`
`Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Liu,
`Groban, Jenkins, and Margulies* concurred.
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
`District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
`to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
`
`
`CALIFORNIA
`
`
`THE PEOPLE,
`
`Plaintiff and Respondent,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT MAURICE BLOOM,
`
`Defendant and Appellant.
`
`
`
`S095223
`
`
`
`Los Angeles County Superior Court
`
`A801380
`
`
`
`
`
`April 21, 2022
`
`
`
`Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which
`
`Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Liu,
`Groban, Jenkins, and Margulies* concurred.
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
`District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
`to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`S095223
`
`
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`
`
`After a federal court vacated his earlier conviction and
`
`sentence, defendant Robert Maurice Bloom was retried and
`
`convicted of the first degree murder of his father and the second
`
`degree murders of his stepmother and stepsister. The jury on
`
`retrial also found true a multiple-murder special-circumstance
`
`finding and various firearm- and weapon-use findings. (Pen.
`
`Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1),
`
`12022, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Bloom was sentenced to
`
`death. This appeal is automatic. (Id., § 1239, subd. (b).)
`
`We now affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part.
`
`At trial, defense counsel conceded Bloom’s responsibility for the
`
`deaths of all three victims in an effort to pursue a mental
`
`capacity defense to the murder charges. Bloom, however, was
`
`willing to accept responsibility only for the killing of his father
`
`and expressly objected to admitting responsibility for the deaths
`
`of the other two victims. In conceding responsibility for these
`
`victims against Bloom’s wishes, defense counsel violated
`
`Bloom’s Sixth Amendment right to choose the fundamental
`
`objectives of his defense under McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584
`
`U.S. ___ [138 S.Ct. 1500]. The error does not affect Bloom’s
`
`conviction for the murder of his father or the associated firearm-
`
`use finding. But the error requires us to reverse the rest of the
`
`judgment, including the second degree murder convictions
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`relating to the other two victims, the multiple-murder special-
`
`circumstance finding, and ultimately the judgment of death.
`
`The People may retry Bloom on the relevant counts and
`
`associated enhancement and special circumstance allegations if
`
`they so choose.
`
`I. FACTS
`
`Bloom was charged with and convicted of the murders of
`
`his father, Robert Bloom, Sr.; his stepmother, Josephine Bloom;
`
`and his eight-year-old stepsister, Sandra Hughes. In an earlier
`
`automatic appeal, we affirmed Bloom’s conviction and death
`
`sentence. (People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194.) A federal
`
`court then granted habeas relief on the ground that Bloom’s trial
`
`counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in the investigation
`
`and presentation of mental health evidence. (Bloom v. Calderon
`
`(9th Cir. 1997) 132 F.3d 1267.) This case now returns to us
`
`following Bloom’s retrial for the murders.
`
`On retrial, Bloom entered alternative pleas of not guilty
`
`and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found Bloom
`
`guilty of the first degree murder of his father and an associated
`
`firearm allegation but reported that it was unable to reach
`
`verdicts on the remaining counts. The prosecution then
`
`dismissed the allegations in support of first degree murder on
`
`the other two murder counts, and the jury found Bloom guilty of
`
`second degree murder as to each count. It also found true
`
`associated firearm-use and weapon-use allegations and a
`
`multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation.
`
`After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court held a
`
`sanity trial. The jury found Bloom sane as to the first degree
`
`murder but was unable to reach a verdict as to the two second
`
`degree murders. Defendant then withdrew his plea of not guilty
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`by reason of insanity and proceeded to a penalty trial, at which
`
`he represented himself. The jury returned a death verdict and
`
`the court entered judgment accordingly.
`
`A. Guilt Phase Evidence
`
`1. Prosecution case
`
`In 1982, Robert Bloom, Sr., his wife, Josephine (whose
`
`given name was Lucille), and her eight-year-old daughter,
`
`Sandra Hughes (also known as Sandy), lived in a house on
`
`Sancola Avenue in Sun Valley. Bloom, 18 years old at the time,
`
`stayed at the house off and on.
`
`The murders occurred during the early morning on April
`
`22, 1982. One witness, Dave Hughes, had been asleep with his
`
`girlfriend in a van parked in the driveway of his parents’ house,
`
`which was next door to the Bloom residence. After being
`
`awakened by the sound of a toilet flushing in his parents’ house,
`
`Hughes heard two people arguing outside his van. Looking out
`
`the van’s rear window, he saw Bloom, Sr., on his front lawn and
`
`Bloom standing in the street. Bloom, Sr., was “hollering” at
`
`Bloom in an “angry[,] pleading” voice to “come back.” Bloom,
`
`Sr., then chased after Bloom, who had taken off running down
`
`the street. A few minutes later, Bloom, Sr., and Bloom returned
`
`together. The two men entered the Bloom residence.
`
`Hughes tried to go back to sleep but heard more arguing
`
`outside his van. Looking out again, he saw Bloom heading off
`
`in the opposite direction from the one he had previously taken,
`
`while Bloom, Sr., stood in his yard, again telling Bloom to come
`
`back. A minute or two later, Hughes heard a shot that sounded
`
`like a .22- or .25-caliber gun. Bloom, Sr., clutched his
`
`midsection, started jumping up and down and screaming, and
`
`ran toward his house. Bloom came running, pointing a rifle at
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`Bloom, Sr. Hughes heard two more gunshots, followed by the
`
`sound of glass breaking. Bloom, Sr., fell onto the front porch.
`
`Bloom approached and pointed a rifle at his father. Hughes
`
`heard two more shots.
`
`Bloom ran into the house and Josephine began screaming.
`
`After two gunshots, the screaming stopped. Between 30 seconds
`
`and a minute later, there was another shot. Hughes got out of
`
`the van and entered his parents’ house to call 9-1-1, then went
`
`back to the van to get his girlfriend. As he came around the side
`
`of his parents’ house, he saw Bloom standing in the dining room
`
`window of the Bloom residence “messing” with his rifle. Bloom
`
`put down the gun and stared out the window. Hughes saw
`
`Bloom leave the house, put the rifle in Josephine’s car, and drive
`
`away. Police arrived within five minutes.
`
`Another witness, Moises Gameros, was living on Sancola
`
`Avenue across the street and a few doors up from the Bloom
`
`residence. Gameros woke up in the early morning hours on
`
`April 22 and heard someone repeatedly yelling “Robert.”
`
`Looking out his window, Gameros saw Bloom, Sr., and Bloom
`
`walking down Sancola Avenue. Bloom was holding a rifle.
`
`Standing outside Gameros’s living room window, Bloom, Sr.,
`
`said, “That’s it, I’m gonna call the cops,” and walked back toward
`
`his house. Bloom followed and tried to enter the house after
`
`him. It appeared to Gameros that Bloom, Sr., tried to grab the
`
`rifle from Bloom from within the house. Bloom then ran from
`
`the house, with Bloom, Sr., chasing him, past Gameros’s field of
`
`vision. Gameros heard a shot and heard Bloom, Sr., screaming.
`
`Bloom, Sr., turned and ran toward his house; Bloom shot him
`
`again. Bloom, Sr., reached the front stairs to his house and fell.
`
`From his vantage point, Gameros could no longer see Bloom, Sr.,
`
`but he saw Bloom point the rifle downward and shoot once more.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`Bloom stood in the doorway for about a minute, manipulating
`
`the rifle, and then entered the house. Gameros heard nothing
`
`further. After about 10 minutes, Bloom emerged from the house
`
`with the rifle, got into a car, and drove away.
`
`Sergeant Joseph Dvorak of the Los Angeles Police
`
`Department was the first to respond to the scene. He found
`
`Bloom, Sr., in the front doorway and Josephine in a hallway or
`
`bedroom. Both were dead. Sandra was found in a different
`
`bedroom, alive but seriously injured. After an ambulance
`
`arrived and took the child, Dvorak secured the crime scene.
`
`Sergeant Michael McKean of the Los Angeles Police Department
`
`arrived about 4:15 a.m. Along with two other police cars, he
`
`drove to the home of Bloom’s girlfriend, accompanied by a
`
`neighbor who knew its location. The neighbor saw Bloom
`
`walking westbound on Nettleton Avenue, two and a half to three
`
`miles from the Sancola residence, and pointed him out. Officers
`
`arrested him. Later that day, McKean located Josephine’s car
`
`parked on the street a mile and a half to two miles from where
`
`Bloom was arrested.
`
`A later autopsy determined that Bloom, Sr., had died of
`
`gunshot wounds to the abdomen, neck, and cheek. Josephine
`
`suffered three fatal gunshot wounds to the head. Sandra
`
`sustained a graze wound to the right shoulder and a gunshot
`
`wound to the head that led to her death after time spent on a
`
`respirator. She also suffered 23 stab and cutting wounds to the
`
`head, neck, right arm, torso, and back, as well as superficial
`
`wounds to the inside of her left wrist and forefinger, all inflicted
`
`by a pointed instrument such as a pair of scissors. From the
`
`nature of the stab wounds, it appeared Sandra was moving
`
`around when they were inflicted; she was shot after being
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`stabbed and cut. Toxicology reports on Bloom, Sr., and
`
`Josephine were both negative for drugs and alcohol.
`
`Various witnesses testified about events occurring in the
`
`days preceding the killings. Martin Medrano, an acquaintance
`
`of Bloom’s who testified at the first trial, was deceased by the
`
`time of the retrial; his prior testimony was read to the retrial
`
`jury. In April 1982, Bloom said he had a contract to kill someone
`
`and offered Medrano $1,200 to get him a gun. Medrano, a drug
`
`addict who was on parole, said he intended to take Bloom’s
`
`money but not give him a gun. Bloom approached Medrano
`
`several more times. Medrano asked if he had the money; Bloom
`
`told Medrano he would get it and that Medrano would read
`
`about the killing. At the time Medrano testified, he was in
`
`custody for armed robbery. He had seen Bloom in jail and
`
`reported his earlier dealings with him to a deputy sheriff. No
`
`promises were made to Medrano in connection with his
`
`testimony.
`
`Ricardo Avila testified that in 1982 he and his then-
`
`girlfriend, Christine Waller, both 14 years old, were friends of
`
`Bloom’s. They spent time with Bloom at the homes of Waller’s
`
`mother and of Bloom, Sr. According to Avila, Bloom and
`
`Bloom, Sr., argued frequently about everything Bloom did.
`
`Bloom never fought back physically. Two days before the
`
`killings, Avila was watching television with Waller in her
`
`family’s living room when he saw Bloom pass by outside the
`
`window holding a rifle. Avila heard “five or six pops” and went
`
`toward the back of the house, where he saw Bloom entering
`
`through a sliding door, hiding a rifle under his jacket. The day
`
`before the killings, Bloom, Sr., came to Waller’s residence
`
`looking for Bloom, who was not there. Avila went to Bloom’s
`
`workplace and told him his father had come looking for him.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`Bloom went to a pay phone, called his father, and said, “You’re
`
`running my life now, but you won’t be for long.”
`
`Waller testified at Bloom’s first trial but was unavailable
`
`for the retrial; her prior testimony was read to the retrial jury.
`
`In 1982, Waller had had a very close relationship with Bloom,
`
`who would often come over to her house and sometimes sleep
`
`there. On the evening of April 20, 1982, two days before the
`
`killings, she saw Bloom outside her house carrying a rifle she
`
`recognized as her brother’s toward a vacant field. The following
`
`day, Bloom was again at Waller’s house and was planning to
`
`spend the night; her mother asked her to wake him up the next
`
`day at 5:00 a.m. That evening, Bloom looked pale, quiet, and
`
`tense, the way he did when he was upset; later, however,
`
`Waller’s mother, Norma White, thought he looked normal. On
`
`the morning of April 22, Waller knocked on the door of the
`
`bedroom Bloom occupied but received no response. When she
`
`opened the door, the light was on and the bed looked like it had
`
`been slept in, but Bloom was not there.
`
`Whenever Waller saw Bloom with his father, Bloom, Sr.,
`
`appeared “always angry” at Bloom, who could never seem to
`
`satisfy him. Bloom would sometimes cry after confrontations
`
`with his father. During visits to the Bloom residence, Waller
`
`saw Bloom take good care of his stepsister Sandra, playing with
`
`her and fixing her food to eat.
`
`White’s son, Raul Rosas, testified he was living in White’s
`
`house at the time of the killings and knew Bloom. Rosas owned
`
`a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, which he initially kept
`
`unloaded in his bedroom but then kept in the trunk of his car
`
`after some gang members shot at him. He never showed the gun
`
`to Bloom. Rosas was at home on April 21, 1982, the day before
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`the killings, and saw Bloom, who appeared normal. The
`
`following day, after learning of the shootings, Rosas discovered
`
`his gun was missing and notified police.
`
`2. Defense case
`
`Bloom had pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of
`
`insanity to all charges. At the guilt phase, the defense presented
`
`evidence to show that Bloom was suffering from severe mental
`
`impairments that prevented him from forming malice. The
`
`defense also presented evidence suggesting that Bloom, Sr., had
`
`abused Bloom and that the killings were committed in the heat
`
`of passion.
`
`Bloom’s mother, Melanie Bostic,1 testified that Bloom, Sr.,
`was physically abusive and pushed her down a flight of stairs
`
`while she was pregnant with Bloom. Bloom, Sr., began hitting
`
`and slapping Bloom when he was still a baby. He would also
`
`scream at him, use foul language, and deliberately scare him.
`
`He once ripped apart Bloom’s favorite stuffed animal in front of
`
`him. He would proclaim he was God and that he was going to
`
`kill Bloom. Melanie left the marriage when Bloom was in the
`
`first grade. At the time, he seemed like a normal little boy, but
`
`he did not have any real friends; he instead had an imaginary
`
`friend named Tony.
`
`Robin Bucell was married to Bloom, Sr., for about three
`
`years after Melanie left the family. At the start of the marriage,
`
`Bloom was a small and scrawny 10-year-old and the focus of his
`
`father’s abuse. Bloom, Sr., would slap, beat, and belittle him.
`
`Bloom, Sr., also emotionally manipulated Bloom by telling
`
`
`
`1
`To avoid confusion, we will refer to Melanie Bostic and her
`son Byron Bostic by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`Bloom that he loved him but his mother did not. Melanie,
`
`Bloom’s mother, visited irregularly, and although she was
`
`affectionate toward Bloom, her visits were marked by hostility
`
`and physical violence with Bloom, Sr., which upset Bloom.
`
`Bloom, Sr., would threaten to kill Bucell and members of her
`
`family, a threat she found credible because he claimed to be a
`
`Mafia hit man. Bloom, Sr.’s mother came to live with them for
`
`about a year, during which time he took her Social Security
`
`checks and was mean and rude to her. Bucell had a son, Eric,
`
`with Bloom, Sr. Eventually, in fear for their safety, she left with
`
`Eric and divorced Bloom, Sr. On cross-examination, Bucell
`
`testified that while she was married to Bloom, Sr., Bloom
`
`developed a kidney condition for which he had weekly medical
`
`appointments, but at no time did a doctor raise suspicions of
`
`physical abuse.
`
`Eric Bloom2 testified that his father married Josephine
`when he was five or six years old. Bloom, Sr., did not physically
`
`abuse Eric, but he did beat Bloom “all the time,” and Eric heard
`
`Bloom express fear of their father. Bloom, Sr., would dunk
`
`Bloom’s head in the toilet and throw plates at him. After one
`
`beating about a month before the killings, Bloom told Eric he
`
`couldn’t take much more of the pain and didn’t think he would
`
`live to his next birthday. When Bloom, Sr., and Josephine
`
`fought, Bloom would take Eric out of the house. Bloom would
`
`also get between Eric and his father when Bloom, Sr., yelled at
`
`Eric.
`
`Neuropsychologist Dale G. Watson offered expert
`
`testimony relating to Bloom’s mental state. Dr. Watson
`
`
`
`2
`Again, to avoid confusion, we will refer to Eric Bloom by
`his first name.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`evaluated Bloom in 1993 and again in 1999 and 2000,
`
`administering comprehensive neuropsychological tests. In
`
`neither test administration did Dr. Watson detect evidence of
`
`malingering.
`
` The
`
`1993
`
`testing
`
`revealed
`
`“severe
`
`neuropsychological impairment” indicative of “very significant
`
`neuropsychological deficits.” The impairment was associated
`
`with both the left and right hemispheres, but primarily the
`
`right. Bloom’s deficits affected his ability to read social cues and
`
`process emotions. He also exhibited significant impairment in
`
`problem solving. Bloom’s verbal IQ was 95 — average being
`
`100 — but his performance IQ was 67, in the very impaired
`
`range; the striking disparity between the two scores suggested
`
`the presence of brain damage or impairment. The 1999 and
`
`2000 testing yielded results consistent with the prior testing,
`
`with a verbal IQ of 112, in the high average range, and a
`
`performance IQ of 65, in the extremely low range, with right
`
`hemisphere impairment still evident. During the evaluation,
`
`Bloom exhibited or related certain compulsive behaviors and
`
`“oddities,” such as reciting the entire sequence of English
`
`monarchs. His developmental anomalies, such as dysmorphic
`
`facial features and the presence of two kidneys on one side of his
`
`body, were consistent with birth defects. Such defects can be
`
`related to fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal Dilantin syndrome, a
`
`consequence of an antiseizure medication now known to affect
`
`fetal health that Dr. Watson testified Bloom’s mother took while
`
`pregnant. Further, according to Dr. Watson, Bloom likely
`
`suffered brain damage in a drowning incident when he was two
`
`years old. Loss of oxygen supply can cause permanent brain
`
`deficits and personality changes. Dr. Watson diagnosed Bloom
`
`as having cognitive disorder not otherwise specified and/or
`
`severe nonverbal neurocognitive dysfunction. His report on his
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`2000 evaluation opined that at the time of the homicides Bloom
`
`was, because of a mental defect, unable to comprehend his duty
`
`to govern his conduct in accordance with the law. Dr. Watson
`
`concluded that Bloom was in a dissociative state from the time
`
`he shot his father until the killings were over. Dr. Watson was
`
`uncertain whether Bloom was dissociating when he and his
`
`father were going up and down the street before the shooting.
`
`Forensic psychiatrist Mark J. Mills also testified for the
`
`defense in the guilt phase. Dr. Mills had become involved in the
`
`case in 1993 when the judge who was then presiding over
`
`Bloom’s federal habeas corpus proceedings consulted him
`
`concerning issues related to Bloom’s mental health. (The retrial
`
`jury was not told the precise nature of those proceedings.) In
`
`1999, trial counsel retained Dr. Mills and provided him with
`
`voluminous records he had not seen at the time of the earlier
`
`consultation. Review of the additional material led Dr. Mills to
`
`revise his earlier opinions. Specifically, he diagnosed Bloom
`
`with Asperger Syndrome, a developmental disorder on the
`
`autism spectrum, and concluded Bloom had suffered extreme
`
`emotional and physical abuse as a child. Abused children often
`
`dissociate — that is, they enter a state of partial consciousness
`
`or partial awareness — as a way of coping with the pain and fear
`
`engendered by the abuse, and Bloom was more prone to
`
`dissociation by virtue of the brain dysfunction Dr. Watson had
`
`identified. Dr. Mills believed Bloom was in a dissociative state
`
`around the time of the killings, a conclusion for which he found
`
`support in the testimony of eyewitnesses Dave Hughes and
`
`Moises Gameros regarding Bloom’s apparently ambivalent and
`
`purposeless actions immediately after the shootings. Bloom was
`
`also often paranoid and tolerated the administration of
`
`antipsychotic medication at levels that would sedate an
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`ordinary person. Dr. Mills acknowledged that although in
`
`general determining a person’s mental state 11 years after the
`
`fact is very difficult, a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome can be
`
`reliably made at a long remove because it is a lifelong
`
`developmental condition; if it exists currently, it would have
`
`existed in the past. Asperger Syndrome impaired Bloom’s social
`
`and emotional reciprocity and ability to empathize, although he
`
`retained an intellectual appreciation of the effects of his actions.
`
`A third mental health expert, psychiatrist William Vicary,
`
`testified that he had originally been appointed by the trial court
`
`in May 1984 to assess Bloom’s competence for a hearing in a low-
`complexity matter.3 Dr. Vicary talked with Bloom in jail,
`reviewed his jail medical records, and spoke with sheriff’s
`
`deputies who knew Bloom. At that time, Bloom was paranoid
`
`and to some extent out of touch with reality. Dr. Vicary
`
`concluded that Bloom understood the nature and purpose of the
`
`proceeding. Dr. Vicary also found, though with a lower level of
`
`confidence, that Bloom could rationally participate in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`In 1993, Dr. Vicary reviewed additional records and
`
`interviewed Bloom again. After doing so, he reconsidered his
`
`earlier opinion and concluded Bloom had not been mentally
`
`competent for most of the prior proceedings. Dr. Vicary believed
`
`Bloom suffered from serious mental illness (which he did not
`
`diagnose specifically) and brain dysfunction. The combination
`
`of mental illness and brain dysfunction made Bloom likely to
`
`
`
`3
`The retrial jury was not told the earlier hearing was the
`original sentencing proceeding in this case.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`“snap” — to suffer a psychotic break or an “emotional explosion,”
`
`or to dissociate — under stress.
`
`B. Sanity Phase
`
`Following Bloom’s convictions in the guilt phase, the jury
`
`heard the trial of Bloom’s insanity defense.
`
`Psychiatrist Philip E. Wolfson testified for the defense
`
`that he had examined Bloom over a total of about 20 hours
`
`between 1990 and 1992 at the request of Bloom’s then-attorney,
`
`seeking to understand Bloom’s state of mind at the time of the
`
`killings. Bloom had described various versions of events over
`
`the years since the crimes, and to get from him what Dr. Wolfson
`
`termed “the closest approximation of the truth,” the psychiatrist
`
`had to earn his trust and break down his defenses.
`
`Dr. Wolfson concluded that in the year or so before the
`
`killings Bloom began to suffer from significant mental illness,
`
`which he diagnosed as a mixed personality disorder with
`
`borderline and dependent features. Borderline personality
`
`disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability of
`
`interpersonal relationships, self-image, moods, and emotions, as
`
`well as marked impulsivity, beginning by early adulthood.
`
`Bloom’s interpersonal relationships were poorly developed; he
`
`tended to either idealize people in his life or put them down. He
`
`had an extremely poor and unstable self-image and was often
`
`the butt of others’ derision. His moods and feelings were
`
`variable and unstable. At times Bloom felt extremely depressed
`
`and worthless; at other times he was extremely agitated; and in
`
`some moments he seemed psychotic. His behavior during his
`
`time in high school (classmates described him as weird and
`
`strange) and in the Navy (he failed to follow basic hygiene or
`
`maintain appropriate comportment), as well as his commission
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`of an attempted robbery with a BB gun, all revealed his
`
`impulsivity and lack of control. Fear of abandonment is
`
`characteristic of borderline personality disorder and was a
`
`constant theme in Bloom’s life from his mother’s leaving the
`
`family, to his father’s disappearances and jail time, until shortly
`
`before the killings, when Bloom, Sr., was reportedly about to put
`
`the house up for sale and move, leading Bloom to fear he would
`
`be left behind. The abandonment and traumatic punishment
`
`Bloom experienced contributed to his chronic feelings of
`
`emptiness. In the year before the homicides Bloom also
`
`experienced transient stress-related paranoid ideation and
`
`dissociative symptoms to a degree that sometimes seemed
`
`psychotic.
`
`Bloom also exhibited less fully developed traits of
`
`dependent personality disorder, which is characterized by a
`
`pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to
`
`submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation
`
`beginning by early adulthood. Dr. Wolfson attributed Bloom’s
`
`apparent inability to leave his father’s home, despite being
`
`abused and denigrated, to the effects of this disorder.
`
`Dr. Wolfson testified that when Bloom was about to
`
`graduate from high school, his living situation was unstable and
`
`he lacked consistent support. He had no real career path and,
`
`to his distress, was discharged from the Navy as unfit after an
`
`enlistment of less than a month. After Bloom’s discharge, as
`
`Bloom, Sr., was going to jail for fraudulent business activities,
`
`Bloom stayed briefly at his mother’s house until he himself was
`
`jailed for the aforementioned robbery with a BB gun.
`
`Dr. Wolfson related that in connection with that crime, some
`
`five months before the homicides, Dr. Richard Naham had
`
`evaluated Bloom and found him to be paranoid and on the verge
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`of a nervous collapse. Dr. Naham wrote in his report at the time
`
`that without inpatient psychiatric treatment Bloom would
`
`continue to present a danger to others.
`
`Dr. Wolfson further testified that, following his release
`
`from custody, Bloom moved in with Bloom, Sr., who meanwhile
`
`had married Josephine, but he also spent considerable time in
`
`the home of his friend Christine Waller. Bloom idealized
`
`Waller’s mother, Norma White, as the mother he wished he
`
`could have had. Bloom’s relationship with his father continued
`
`to deteriorate, as Bloom, Sr., took Bloom’s money for his own
`
`purposes and tried to get Josephine to sign over her rights to
`
`their house. Bloom, Sr., had engaged in numerous other scams
`
`that Bloom recognized and disapproved of. Bloom’s frustrations
`
`exacerbated his confusion, impulsivity, and irrationality.
`
`Bloom’s morality was split, making him both a person with “a
`
`high moral sense” and someone “who could be a con himself.”
`
`Dr. Wolfson testified that Bloom had long entertained
`
`homicidal thoughts toward his father. Seeing a rifle at White’s
`
`house catalyzed a feeling that he could actually kill Bloom, Sr.
`
`Bloom started preparing a fictitious alibi involving intruders
`
`trying to break into the White residence, but his planning was
`
`poor and unrealistic. He was later seen by members of the
`
`White family practicing with the rifle. On the night of the
`
`killings, he took the rifle and returned to his father’s house
`
`intending to kill Bloom, Sr., but, in Dr. Wolfson’s opinion, he was
`
`not planning to harm Josephine or Sandra. At the moment he
`
`shot Bloom, Sr., Bloom lacked the capacity to conform his
`
`conduct to the requirements of the law because he did not view
`
`shooting his father as unjust. According to Dr. Wolfson, Bloom’s
`
`belief that the only way out of his difficult situation was to shoot
`
`his father, and then his going ahead and doing it, was insane.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`As Dr. Naham’s evaluation had warned, Bloom’s connection to
`
`reality had loosened and he had become psychotic. When Bloom
`
`shot Josephine and Sandra, he was in an altered state, acting
`
`without a mental process.
`
`Dr. Wolfson acknowledged that Bloom had told many lies
`
`and given different versions of the events at issue over multiple
`
`interviews, and Dr. Wolfson had had to seek corroboration for
`
`Bloom’s statements.
`
` In response to the prosecutor’s
`
`hypothetical question, Dr. Wolfson could think of no situation in
`
`which it would be sane and rational for a person who had just
`
`killed his father to murder two eyewitnesses to the killing.
`
`Dr. Wolfson believed it would be irrational to wear a trench coat
`
`to hide the fact one is carrying a rifle, as Bloom did in 1981 in
`
`connection with an incident unrelated to the homicides, the
`
`previously mentioned attempted robbery with a BB gun.
`
`Bloom’s planning of the killing of his father and the continuation
`
`of his goal-directed behavior after the killing similarly, in
`
`Dr. Wolfson’s view, reflected insanity. In his fifth interview
`
`with Dr. Wolfson, Bloom stated: “If things had gone right,
`
`[Bloom, Sr.,] would have gotten hit when he was alone. It’s
`
`tricky because Josephine and Sandra were just witnesses.
`
`They’d still be alive.” The statement did not make sense to
`
`Dr. Wolfson “given the whole construction of the facts,” and he
`
`noted Bloom later retracted it. Dr. Wolfson believed Bloom was
`
`telling the truth when he later claimed he did not know why he
`
`killed Josephine and Sandra because it was while making this
`
`claim, as opposed to the other explanations he had offered in
`
`recounting their killings, that he had the most profound
`
`emotional reaction and remorse.
`
`Dr. Wolfson disagreed with some of the other experts who
`
`had been consulted in the case. He did not agree with Dr. Mills
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`that Bloom had Asperger Syndrome. Nor did he agree with
`
`another doctor who had opined that Bloom was not psychotic, or
`
`a doctor who had opined that Bloom was sane when he killed his
`
`father. Finally, he did not agree with Dr. Watson’s diagnosis of
`
`severe brain impairment.
`
`The prosecution presented no evidence at the sanity
`
`phase.
`
`C. Penalty Phase
`
`1. Prosecution case
`
`The prosecution presented victim impact evidence as well
`
`as evidence of Bloom’s involvement in several prior incidents of
`
`violence or threatened violence, including: (1) a November 1981
`
`robbery in which Bloom pulled a BB gun out of a trench coat,
`
`grabbed the purse of a woman attending a Bible study group,
`
`and fled after he was thwarted; (2) a May 1984 incident at the
`
`law library in Men’s Central Jail, in which Bloom was seen
`
`holding a knife and running away from another inmate, who
`
`was bleeding; and (3) Bloom’s February 1982 statement to
`
`Josephine’s uncle, at Josephine’s wedding to Bloom, Sr., that he
`
`wanted to kill Josephine and Sandra because they were “in the
`
`way.” Bloom added that he had “a half brother that’s in the way
`
`and I don’t need two more in the way,” and threatened
`
`Josephine’s uncle that if he got “in the way, I will kill you.”
`
`2. Defense case
`
`Bloom successfully moved to discharge his attorneys and
`
`represent himself at the penalty phase. He presented the
`
`testimony of several inmates and sheriff’s deputies regarding
`
`his character.
`
`
`
`Three female witnesses testified that while incarcerated
`
`they had met Bloom on the bus transporting inmates from jail
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE v. BLOOM
`
`Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.
`
`
`
`to court. Each testified Bloom was polite and respectful. The
`
`inmate Bloom had stabbed in the law library testified that
`
`Bloom explained he “met a girl who apparently read [about his]
`
`case in the n
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
