throbber
Filed 3/5/18
`
`
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`)
`THE PEOPLE,
`)
`
`)
`Plaintiff and Respondent,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`)
`
`
`)
`TODD JESSE GARTON,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant and Appellant.
` ____________________________________)
`
`
`
`S097558
`
`
`
`Shasta County
`Super. Ct. No. 98F4493
`
`
`
`A jury in Shasta County convicted defendant Todd Jesse Garton of first
`
`degree murder and conspiracy to murder his wife, Carole Garton, and her fetus,
`
`and conspiracy to murder his codefendant’s husband, Dean Noyes. (Pen. Code,
`
`§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a); all undesignated references are to this code.)
`
`The jury found true special circumstance allegations that defendant committed
`
`multiple murders, that he committed the murders for financial gain, and that a
`
`principal in each offense was armed with a firearm. (§§ 190.2, subds. (a)(3),
`
`(a)(1), 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is
`
`automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We reverse
`
`defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to murder Dean Noyes and affirm the
`
`judgment in all other respects.
`
`SEE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
`
`

`

`I. FACTS
`
`A. Guilt phase
`
`
`
`Defendant was originally charged with a codefendant, Lynn Noyes. Before
`
`trial, the court severed their cases, and Lynn Noyes pleaded guilty to the murder of
`
`Carole Garton and to the conspiracy to murder her husband, Dean Noyes. For
`
`clarity, we refer to Carole Garton, Lynn Noyes, and Dean Noyes by their first
`
`names. The parties presented the following evidence in Garton’s trial.
`
`1. Prosecution evidence
`
`
`
`Garton and Lynn met in high school in 1986 and dated for a time. After
`
`Lynn was suspended from high school, she saw Garton less, and by 1987, Garton
`
`had begun dating Carole. In 1990, Garton entered the Marine Corps, and he and
`
`Carole married in 1991. Although Lynn and Garton remained in contact, Lynn
`
`began dating Dean, and the two were married in 1992. Lynn and Dean had
`
`divorced by the time of Garton’s trial in 2001.
`
`a. Conspiracy to kill Dean Noyes
`
`
`
`In the beginning of 1996 or 1997, after he and Carole had moved to Shasta
`
`County, Garton told his friend Dale Gordon that he was a paid assassin for an
`
`organization he called “The Company.” He began to talk about murdering Lynn’s
`
`husband, Dean, as a “hit” or “assassination” for this organization in exchange for
`
`money. Over the course of one or two years, Garton and Gordon discussed the
`
`murder “about 50 times, at least,” and “[m]aybe a hundred times.” Garton said he
`
`would be paid $25,000 for such a murder, and although he did not agree to a
`
`particular amount, Garton told Gordon that Gordon would be paid from Dean’s
`
`life insurance policy if he was involved in his murder. Gordon agreed to help plan
`
`and participate in Dean’s murder.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`In the spring of 1997, Garton told Lynn that Dean was having an affair and
`
`that “he knew people who could take him out.” Later that year, Lynn received a
`
`call from the husband of the woman with whom Dean was having an affair. When
`
`she confronted Dean, he acknowledged the affair. Lynn then told Garton to “go
`
`ahead and take him out.” She told Garton that Dean would be taking a trip to San
`
`Francisco in the future, and she sent Garton a box with keys to the cars that she
`
`and Dean owned; keys to their home in Gresham, Oregon; pictures of Dean; and
`
`information about where he parked and typically went after work in Portland,
`
`Oregon.
`
`
`
`Garton began discussing a plan to murder Dean with another friend,
`
`Norman Daniels, around October 1997. Garton said there were several “contracts
`
`on [Dean’s] head” because he had embezzled money, and Daniels agreed to
`
`accompany Garton and Gordon and provide “support” for the plan. Garton told
`
`Daniels that he would receive $1,000 after Lynn received Dean’s life insurance
`
`payment if Daniels participated.
`
`
`
`Garton originally planned to kill Dean in San Francisco while he was
`
`attending a conference, and he discussed this plan with Gordon and Daniels. But
`
`the trip was cancelled, and the three never followed through on the plan.
`
`
`
`Instead, Garton and Gordon began planning to murder Dean in Oregon at
`
`his home or workplace. The two told Daniels that they would travel to Portland in
`
`October 1997 “to scout out the area,” and on October 10, 1997, Garton and
`
`Gordon rented rooms in a hotel in Portland. That afternoon, they went to the
`
`Noyeses’ home in Gresham and walked through the house while she was there.
`
`Garton drew a picture of the house, and later Garton and Gordon drove by Dean’s
`
`workplace in downtown Portland. That night, Lynn and Garton had sex in
`
`Garton’s hotel room.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Gordon and Garton returned to Oregon on January 3, 1998. They stayed in
`
`a hotel in the Eugene area, where they met with Lynn. They talked with Lynn
`
`about killing Dean and showed her several guns and knives, as well as
`
`ammunition, additional magazines, handcuffs, latex gloves, and a first aid kit.
`
`Gordon said they did so “to show Lynn that we were really going to do this.”
`
`Lynn spent the night in Garton’s room; the two had sex and returned to their
`
`respective homes the following day.
`
`
`
`In late January or early February 1998, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels met at
`
`the Moose Lodge in Anderson, California, to plan a trip to Oregon to murder
`
`Dean. They discussed two plans: first, they would try to kill Dean at his
`
`workplace; failing that, they would enter the Noyes residence and shoot him there.
`
`Garton also discussed paying Gordon and Daniels for their roles in the killing.
`
`On February 6, 1998, the three men drove up to Oregon. They brought a
`
`variety of guns, a silencer, communication devices, handcuffs, and latex gloves.
`
`Upon arriving in Gresham, they checked into a motel and stashed their equipment
`
`in their room. They then drove to the parking garage near Dean’s workplace,
`
`where they planned to kill him the next day.
`
`The next morning, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels rose early and drove to the
`
`parking garage to await Dean’s arrival. But Dean never arrived; unbeknownst to
`
`Garton, Lynn had told Dean to drive the larger of their cars, knowing that this car
`
`would not fit into the garage where the three men waited. After realizing that
`
`Dean had parked elsewhere, the men left and checked into a different hotel. Later,
`
`Garton shot a rifle out the hotel window into a deserted field.
`
`That afternoon, Lynn came to the hotel. She tried to convince Garton to
`
`abandon the plan, but he insisted that it was too late to do so and that he would try
`
`to kill Dean again that evening. She later called Garton and said she would try to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`get Dean and his brother, who was visiting at the time, out of the house so that the
`
`killing would not occur in her home.
`
`That night, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels left the hotel and parked near the
`
`Noyes residence. The men, all armed, approached the house, and Garton went to
`
`the front door. But Garton was unable to open the door, and the men ran back to
`
`their car. They returned to their hotel and departed for California the next
`
`morning.
`
`
`
`After returning home, Garton concocted a new plan to kill Dean. At the
`
`time, Lynn thought Dean was embezzling money from his employer. Garton
`
`planned to use this information to extort Dean and then kill him. He returned to
`
`Gresham in May 1998 and, with Lynn’s assistance, staged a break-in of the Noyes
`
`residence, taking a planner, a laptop, and some computer disks and equipment.
`
`According to Daniels, Garton also planned to kill Dean on this trip if the
`
`opportunity arose. Following the staged break-in, Garton called Daniels from his
`
`hotel room, telling him to send Dean an anonymous e-mail insinuating that
`
`someone knew he was embezzling and threatening harm to his children if he
`
`didn’t cooperate. Daniels complied. Subsequently, Dean received several cryptic
`
`messages from the same anonymous e-mail address. Garton’s computer contained
`
`evidence that he had accessed the account from which these e-mails were sent.
`
`Garton continued to discuss the possibility of murdering Dean with Lynn after
`
`sending these e-mails and after Carole’s murder, but the conspiracy to murder
`
`Dean was never carried out.
`
`b. Murder of Carole Garton and her fetus
`
`In October 1997, Carole and Garton discovered that Carole was pregnant.
`
`The prosecution presented evidence that Garton thought children were “pains”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`who would take away his freedom. He told people that he did not want the child
`
`and that it was not his.
`
`A few months later, Garton and Carole applied for life insurance. Carole
`
`was approved for a policy of $125,000, which was in effect at the time she was
`
`murdered. Garton was listed as the primary beneficiary.
`
`In early April 1998, two months after Garton, Daniels, and Gordon had
`
`driven to Oregon to murder Dean, Garton approached Daniels about another
`
`killing. He explained his involvement in The Company and said the organization
`
`would pay Daniels for fulfilling one of its “contracts” to kill someone. After
`
`completing one assassination, Daniels would become a member of The Company.
`
`If Daniels agreed to do this, Garton explained, The Company would send him a
`
`package revealing Daniels’s target. Garton’s code name was “Patriot,” and he
`
`gave Daniels a business card that said “Patriot” and had Garton’s pager number on
`
`it.
`
`Later that month, in preparation for the killing, Daniels and Garton bought
`
`a handgun, cleaning equipment, a holster, and two boxes of ammunition. Garton
`
`advised Daniels what gun to buy, paid for it, gave Daniels a holster for it, and
`
`helped him break it in. Daniels used that gun to kill Carole.
`
`On April 27, 1998, Garton bought a label maker, label tape cartridges, a
`
`manila envelope, and a pager. That night, he delivered the “target package” to
`
`Daniels. The package was in a manila envelope with a label on it, and it bore a
`
`wax seal with an imprint resembling a trinket of Garton’s. As Daniels opened the
`
`envelope, Garton told him that if he opened it, he would have to carry out the
`
`assigned killing or else be killed himself.
`
`The package contained a pager, some photographs, and some newspaper
`
`and magazine excerpts about the Irish Republican Army (IRA). All three
`
`photographs depicted Carole, and the back of one photograph contained
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`information about Carole and Garton, along with a timeframe in which the murder
`
`was to take place and other instructions.
`
`Garton looked over the package’s contents with Daniels and seemed upset
`
`that the intended victim was his wife. Daniels said he couldn’t carry out the
`
`murder and asked Garton to call someone to change the target; Garton picked up
`
`the phone and started dialing, but then put the phone down and said, “Well, at least
`
`it’s not me.” Garton explained that Carole had been a member of the IRA and had
`
`worked with The Company, but had betrayed the group and so was being targeted
`
`as retribution. Later, on Garton’s advice, Daniels destroyed the photographs and
`
`documents, but kept the imprinted wax seal.
`
`After that meeting, Garton told Daniels that Daniels should have a received
`
`an introductory e-mail from The Company. Daniels said he had probably deleted
`
`it, and Garton said he would have The Company resend it. Soon thereafter, on
`
`May 6, 1998, Daniels received the introductory e-mail from the address
`
`“companyt@usa.net.” It welcomed him to the organization, informed him how he
`
`would receive coded messages, and explained that someone would be assigned to
`
`follow him and make sure he did his job. Garton responded to the e-mail on
`
`Daniels’s behalf. Over the next week, Daniels exchanged a series of e-mails with
`
`companyt@usa.net regarding his assignment. One of those e-mails contained a
`
`threat on Daniels’s life if he failed to kill Carole. The Company’s e-mail address
`
`was registered to a physical address in Northern Ireland, and drafts of The
`
`Company’s e-mails were found on the computer at the Garton residence.
`
`As Daniels prepared to murder Carole, Garton provided assistance and
`
`advice. He initially told Daniels to kill Carole while Garton was in Oregon in
`
`early May, so that Garton would have an alibi. He told Daniels how to dispose of
`
`the murder weapon. When Daniels’s request for additional money was denied by
`
`the companyt@usa.net address, Garton offered him money. Garton then advised
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Daniels to kill Carole on May 16, 1998, because Garton would be gone all day at a
`
`gun show.
`
`Garton also asked Lynn to help Daniels with the killing. In the fall of 1996,
`
`Garton and Lynn had previously discussed killing Carole as a way for them to
`
`reunite. This time, Garton began by saying that because of the earlier incident in
`
`Oregon, Lynn had no choice but to help The Company with one of its contracts.
`
`He later revealed that Carole was the target and that there was nothing he could do
`
`about it.
`
`At Garton’s request, Lynn often spoke with Daniels via e-mail, online chat
`
`rooms, instant messaging, and telephone in the weeks leading up to Carole’s
`
`murder. Garton told Daniels that Lynn would psychologically evaluate him on
`
`behalf of The Company, which allowed Lynn to glean information from Daniels
`
`about his preparedness and then pass that information on to Garton.
`
`
`
`On May 16, 1998, Garton and Daniels went to work at a gun show. Garton
`
`had previously recommended killing Carole that day because everyone would be
`
`at the show and killing her at home because they lived in a sparsely populated
`
`area. Carole briefly dropped by the show after a doctor’s appointment, and
`
`Daniels went home with her. After the two watched a movie together, Carole
`
`went to her room and lay down. Daniels drove to return the video, went back to
`
`the house, and then shot her five times.
`
`
`
` Daniels left the house and drove the Gartons’ Jeep to a nearby parking lot,
`
`where he abandoned the vehicle; he and Garton had planned to make the murder
`
`look like it occurred during a robbery. Daniels went home and paged Garton with
`
`the message, “All done, going home.” Garton called Daniels to ask whether the
`
`message was for him, and Daniels confirmed it was. Daniels then left a message
`
`for Lynn, and the two later communicated online and over the phone; she advised
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`him to dispose of any evidence. He also e-mailed companyt@usa.net with the
`
`message, “Package delivered.”
`
`Later that afternoon, Gordon’s girlfriend, Sarah Mann, arrived at the Garton
`
`residence. Gordon, Daniels, Garton, Carole, and Mann had all planned to go out
`
`that evening. On her way there, Mann saw Daniels driving the Gartons’ Jeep. She
`
`entered the home but saw no one there, so she watched television and played on
`
`the computer. Gordon arrived next, followed about 10 minutes later by Garton.
`
`Garton asked where Carole was, went outside, quickly came back in, and asked
`
`someone to call 911 because their Jeep had been stolen. Mann said she had just
`
`seen Daniels driving the Jeep. But Garton insisted the Jeep had been stolen and
`
`told Gordon he had to call 911.
`
`
`
`Garton then went into the bedroom and discovered Carole’s body. He
`
`yelled for someone to call 911 and attempted to resuscitate Carole. The police
`
`arrived, followed by emergency medical technicians, but they were unable to
`
`revive her. Carole was pronounced dead at the scene.
`
`
`
`That night, Garton paged Daniels and the two spoke on the phone. Garton
`
`asked Daniels if he knew that Carole had been murdered and said the police were
`
`looking for Daniels. Garton also told him to dispose of the evidence. Daniels,
`
`who was at a friend’s house, asked Garton for a ride home to get rid of the gun,
`
`but Garton refused.
`
`The next morning, May 17, 1998, Daniels asked Lynn to have The
`
`Company protect him. Lynn told Daniels that Garton wanted Daniels to return
`
`home and dispose of the gun, though Garton warned that the house was being
`
`watched; Garton also mentioned the possibility of Daniels fleeing to New York.
`
`On returning home, Daniels encountered two detectives who had been
`
`monitoring his home and had received information of his return, and Daniels was
`
`taken into custody. The next day, May 18, 1998, at the behest of the detectives,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Daniels called Garton. In that recorded conversation, after Daniels told Garton
`
`that he had “copped a plea of jealousy,” Garton said, “I’m going to get on the
`
`phone to the big boys and see what we can pull here,” and “I’ll see whatever
`
`monies you had coming . . . goes to your kid or family or something,” which
`
`Daniels understood as a reference to The Company and the money he would be
`
`paid for killing Carole.
`
`After Daniels’s arrest, Garton advised Lynn to tell the police that Daniels
`
`was jealous of Garton and Carole’s relationship, that she had only ever interacted
`
`with Daniels over the internet, and that she and Garton had no romantic
`
`relationship. In June 1998, detectives came to Lynn’s house. Seeing them
`
`approach from the kitchen window, she quickly called Garton, who told her to
`
`“remember the truth that [they] discussed, and stick to that.”
`
`2. Defense evidence
`
`Garton testified in his defense and denied he was involved in the plot to kill
`
`Dean or in Carole’s murder. He presented the following evidence through his own
`
`testimony and the testimony of several other witnesses.
`
`a. Conspiracy to kill Dean Noyes
`
`Garton dated Lynn in high school and broke off the relationship when he
`
`met Carole. But the two remained in contact. When Garton informed her that he
`
`was marrying Carole, Lynn responded that she planned on marrying him and sent
`
`Carole all of Garton’s letters to her in an attempt to stop the wedding. A year
`
`passed without further contact, until Lynn wrote Garton to say she too was getting
`
`married. After moving from California to Bend, Oregon, in the early 1990s,
`
`Garton and Carole reconnected with Lynn and began speaking regularly. During
`
`these conversations, Lynn repeatedly expressed romantic interest in Garton,
`
`although he discouraged such advances.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Carole and Garton eventually moved back to Redding, California, where
`
`Garton began working for a fencing company and a hunting equipment supplier.
`
`On weekends, he would travel to hunting equipment shows across the region;
`
`these trips often took him to Oregon. One of these trips was to Eugene, Oregon,
`
`with Gordon. He met Lynn on this trip, but the two did not have sex; according to
`
`Garton, the two never had sex in the years leading up to Carole’s death. Although
`
`Lynn repeatedly told Garton about her suspicion that Dean was having an affair,
`
`Garton never provided her with any information to confirm these suspicions.
`
`
`
`In early 1998, Garton met with Gordon and Daniels at the Moose Lodge to
`
`discuss an upcoming trip to Portland. The three did not discuss killing Dean.
`
`Instead, they discussed going to a hunting equipment show.
`
`
`
`In February 1998, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels traveled to Portland to
`
`promote Garton’s business. They brought a variety of weapons and gear for their
`
`work, but Garton shot none of the guns they brought during the trip. They spent
`
`the first night at a Quality Inn and visited downtown Portland the next morning;
`
`they did not go to the parking garage near Dean’s work. They then went to the
`
`Hampton Inn, where Garton met Lynn. That evening, Daniels and Gordon took
`
`Garton’s car and went to a bar near Lynn’s home. The three men left the next
`
`morning.
`
`
`
`Garton returned to Portland on May 9, 1998, accompanied by Carole. He
`
`phoned Daniels from the hotel during that visit to discuss an ongoing fencing
`
`project that was behind schedule.
`
`b. Murder of Carole Garton and her fetus
`
`Garton presented evidence that he was loving toward Carole and excited for
`
`the impending birth of their child. Garton had been a volunteer youth soccer
`
`coach for a season and was good with kids. He attended a childbirth class with
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Carole; although he initially admitted being there involuntarily, he became an
`
`active participant in the class. Upon learning that the child would be a boy,
`
`Garton began referring to him as Jesse and bought him a rifle.
`
`Garton had life insurance through the United States Department of Veterans
`
`Affairs and acquired another policy through a private company in May 1998. He
`
`did not believe Carole had life insurance. He denied having any involvement in
`
`Carole’s killing. He never approached Daniels about becoming a paid assassin.
`
`He never made or saw a wax seal imprinted with a trinket from his home.
`
`Although he did buy an electric label maker, it was for his mother to give to her
`
`friend.
`
`Garton also did not buy Daniels the gun used in Carole’s murder, nor did he
`
`suggest buying that particular gun. He did give Daniels a holster for it, as well as
`
`drive him to pick up the gun. He also went with Daniels to fire the gun after
`
`Daniels had purchased it.
`
`On May 16, 1998, Garton went to work at a nearby gun show. Carole
`
`visited the show on the way home from a doctor’s appointment and went home
`
`with Daniels. Later that afternoon, Garton received a message from Daniels
`
`saying, “All done, going home.”
`
`When Garton came home, Mann and Gordon were there. He asked where
`
`Carole was, but did not tell Mann to call the police because the Jeep had been
`
`stolen. He then discovered Carole’s body. Seeing blood, he yelled for someone to
`
`call 911, tried to find her pulse, and began trying to resuscitate her. The police
`
`arrived and removed him from the house.
`
`The day after the murder, Garton did not speak with Lynn or with Daniels.
`
`The next day, he received a call from Daniels. Although Daniels said he had
`
`“copped a plea of jealousy,” Garton did not realize at the time that Daniels was
`
`confessing to having killed Carole. In the conversation, Garton assured Daniels
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`that he would receive the money Garton’s fencing company owed him. He also
`
`told Daniels that he would speak with his dad and his older brother — whom he
`
`had previously called “the big boys” — to see what they thought of the situation.
`
`3. Prosecution rebuttal evidence
`
`The prosecution presented additional evidence in rebuttal, including the
`
`following: Garton and Carole traveled to Oregon in April 1998; during that visit,
`
`Garton met up with Lynn and the two had sex. During the same month, Garton
`
`ordered business cards from a local printing store for someone who went by
`
`“Patriot,” and he later ordered a flier for Carole’s memorial service from the same
`
`store. He also kept an April 27, 1998 receipt from Office Max, showing the
`
`purchase of a manila envelope, a pager, and a label maker, along with several
`
`other office supplies.
`
`4. Defense surrebuttal evidence
`
`The defense presented testimony from Lynn in response to the
`
`prosecution’s evidence concerning the Gartons’ April 1998 trip to Oregon. Lynn
`
`acknowledged she may have made contradictory statements about the trip; she had
`
`previously told detectives that she had not seen Garton in Oregon that month, and
`
`she had later told the prosecution a different story.
`
`B. Penalty phase
`
`
`
`The prosecution’s penalty phase evidence consisted of victim impact
`
`testimony from Carole’s father, stepmother, and two brothers. The family
`
`members described Carole’s personality and interests, as well as her excitement
`
`about becoming a parent. They described how they learned about Carole’s death
`
`and how seriously her death had affected them as a family and as individuals.
`
`
`
`The defense did not present evidence at the penalty phase. At the
`
`beginning of his closing argument, before discussing the existence of mitigating
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`factors and arguing in favor of a sentence of life without parole, Garton’s counsel
`
`said he had “a message as counsel for Mr. Garton to deliver to” the jury. He
`
`pointed out Daniels’s role in the crime, noted that Garton was incarcerated and
`
`found guilty, and concluded, “To Todd, life without family, freedom, or honor, has
`
`little value. You might as well kill him. He is neither asking nor he expects more
`
`than death from you [sic].”
`
`II. GUILT PHASE ISSUES
`
`A. Wedding ring ruling
`
`
`
`Garton argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request to wear
`
`his wedding ring during trial. He contends this alleged error “violated . . . his right
`
`to present evidence in his defense, to be dressed in civilian attire in the jury’s
`
`presence, and to a reliable guilt and penalty determination in violation of the Fifth,
`
`Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
`
`his rights under article I, sections 7, 15, 16, and 17 of the California Constitution.”
`
`1. Background
`
`
`
`At a pretrial hearing, defense counsel requested that the court allow Garton
`
`to wear his wedding ring and a religious necklace during trial. The court found the
`
`request “problematic” and indicated that it would discuss the request with the
`
`bailiff. The prosecutor opposed the request for security reasons. The prosecutor
`
`also commented, “I see no benefit for him wearing [the wedding ring] . . . other
`
`than his attempt to try and persuade the jury that he has nothing to do with this
`
`murder, and that he’s still bonded with his wife, whatever it is he’s trying to
`
`convey subconsciously, or directly to the jury.”
`
`
`
`The court took issue with the non-security ground of opposition concerning
`
`the wedding ring: “I see the People’s point with regards to the wedding band, and
`
`that is, that one could consider the wearing of that band to be an — in effect, a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`form of communication . . . . The problem with that argument . . . is that if the
`
`Defendant wasn’t in custody, I’m not sure there would be any way I could compel
`
`him to take off his wedding band, even though you may or may not ever get to ask
`
`him about why he’s wearing it.” But the court acknowledged security concerns as
`
`to both items and opined that the effort required to ensure that the necklace and
`
`ring did not enter the jail “may be more of a burden than a busy Deputy Marshal
`
`should have to undertake.”
`
`
`
`At a subsequent hearing, the trial judge said he had spoken with his marshal
`
`and summarized the reasons the jail does not generally allow jewelry to be worn
`
`by inmates: jewelry can be made into a weapon or used for barter, even if the
`
`original wearer does not so intend. The court also noted that Garton would be
`
`wearing a tie and belt at trial, and said that “[t]here [are] roughly at least a hundred
`
`opportunities for the busy Marshal to inadvertently miss one of the now four
`
`items, two of which are small and not readily visible, to be missed and find their
`
`way back to the jail.” Defense counsel offered several options to ensure the
`
`marshals would not miss the jewelry; he suggested providing the marshals with a
`
`checklist or personally taking responsibility for the jewelry. Defense counsel
`
`argued, “[A]ny other defendant who is not in custody in this court . . . would
`
`obviously come in wearing a wedding ring, if that’s their normal course. And so
`
`what we’re now saying is that he is being deprived of the rights that any other
`
`person would have to correctly appear or make a normal appearance before a jury
`
`because of the no-bail situation . . . . And the fact that he does not have a wedding
`
`ring could well be interpreted by jurors as abandonment of his wife, in some sense
`
`or another.” The court was not persuaded and said: “[C]ounsel, there are a great
`
`many married men who never have worn wedding rings. It would really shock me
`
`to think that any juror would start making negative assumptions about a man
`
`whose wife died roughly two years ago because he isn’t currently wearing a ring,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`never having any knowledge about whether he ever wore a ring.” The court
`
`denied Garton’s request. Garton challenges the court’s ruling as to the wedding
`
`ring but not as to the religious necklace.
`
`2. Analysis of civilian attire claim
`
`
`
`We first address Garton’s claim that the trial court’s denial of his request to
`
`wear his wedding ring violated his state and federal constitutional rights to be tried
`
`in civilian attire.
`
`
`
`The high court “has declared that one accused of a crime is entitled to have
`
`his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at
`
`trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or
`
`other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” (Taylor v. Kentucky (1978) 436
`
`U.S. 478, 485.) In particular, “the State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in
`
`identifiable prison clothes.” (Estelle v. Williams (1976) 425 U.S. 501, 512
`
`(Estelle).)
`
`
`
`Among the “substantial reasons for the rule that a criminal defendant is
`
`entitled to be tried in ordinary clothing[, f]oremost is the rationale that compelling
`
`a defendant to go to trial in jail clothing could impair the fundamental presumption
`
`of our system of criminal justice that the defendant is innocent until proved guilty
`
`beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Taylor (1982) 31 Cal.3d 488, 494
`
`(Taylor).) “ ‘Jurors required by the presumption of innocence to accept the
`
`accused as a peer, an individual like themselves who is innocent until proved
`
`guilty, may well see in an accused garbed in prison attire an obviously guilty
`
`person to be recommitted by them to the place where his clothes clearly show he
`
`belongs.’ ” (Ibid., citing Estelle, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 518–519 (dis. opn. of
`
`Brennan, J.).) In such circumstances, a defendant may not be able to sufficiently
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`present his or her defense due to “the embarrassment associated with . . . wearing
`
`jail garb.” (Taylor, at p. 495.) Further, requiring defendants held in custody to
`
`wear inmate attire can violate the principles of equal protection: “[C]ompelling
`
`the accused to stand trial in jail garb operates usually against only those who
`
`cannot post bail prior to trial.” (Estelle, at p. 505; see Taylor, at p. 495.)
`
`
`
`The trial court’s denial of Garton’s request to wear his wedding ring during
`
`trial does not raise the concerns above. The absence of a wedding ring does not
`
`“identif[y]” a defendant as a person in custody (Estelle, supra, 425 U.S. at p. 502),
`
`nor does it act as a “constant reminder of the accused’s condition” that stems from
`
`“distinctive, identifiable attire” associating a defendant with jail or prison (id. at
`
`pp. 504–505).
`
`
`
`Garton argues that even if his request did not implicate the due process and
`
`presumption of innocence rationales for civilian attire, “he was denied equal
`
`protection of the laws due solely to his custodial status.” He argues that out-of-
`
`custody defendants may wear a wedding ring at trial and implies that there was no
`
`justification for Garton’s inability to do so. It is true that an in-custody criminal
`
`defendant’s compelled wearing of jail-associated attire “impinges on the tenets of
`
`equal protection” because it tends to affect those who cannot afford bail. (Taylor,
`
`supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 495.) When a criminal defendant who cannot afford bail
`
`must appear at trial in jail attire, “ ‘[h]e suffers a disadvantage as a result of his
`
`poverty [and o]ur traditions do not brook such disadvantage. [Citation.]’ ” (Ibid.)
`
`However, we need not resolve the merits of Garton’s equal protection theory; any
`
`such violation was harmless because the absence of his wedding ring did not
`
`impermissibly remind the jury of Garton’s custodial status.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`3. Analysis of evidentiary claim
`
`
`
`We next address Garton’s claim that he was “entitled to wear his wedding
`
`ring to rebut evidence that he did not love his wife and child and to prove
`
`affirmatively that he did” during his testimony and while otherwise present at trial.
`
`Garton notes that the jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC 2.20 that when
`
`evaluating witness testimony during trial, it “may consider . . . [t]he demeanor and
`
`manner of the witness while testifying.” He argues that

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket