To view original article click here
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Friday, July 29, 2011
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday upheld the death sentence for a man convicted of shooting another motorist to death in San Diego because the victim had flirted with the defendant’s girlfriend when the vehicles were stopped at an intersection.
The justices unanimously concluded that there was sufficient evidence of aggravating circumstances for a San Diego Superior Court jury to return a death penalty verdict against Correll Lamont Thomas for the 1996 submachine gun killing of Creed Grote, which occurred in the community of Spring Valley.
Prosecutors relied primarily on the testimony of Grote’s passenger, Troy Ortiz, and the defendant’s girlfriend to convict Thomas of the murder. Thomas was also found guilty of a reduced charge of second degree murder in the death of Ricky McDonald, who died from injuries sustained in a beating weeks prior to the Grote killing.
Thomas’ girlfriend, Nicole Halstead, also testified about the McDonald killing.
Jurors deadlocked, however, as to the death penalty, necessitating a second trial. The second jury returned the death penalty verdict, and Judge Alan Preckel imposed the sentence.
Prosecutors cited the two murders, as well as several past crimes—a Stockton murder, a fatal negligent shooting in El Cajon, and a home invasion robbery in the latter city as aggravating circumstances. The defense presented several friends and family members to testify that Thomas, despite a difficult childhood and continuing substance abuse problems, was a caring person with a particular interest in helping children with specially needs.
The defense did not dispute that Thomas shot Grote—although it claimed another man was responsible for the McDonald murder. Counsel did, however, contend that the Grote killing was not premeditated, saying Thomas was under the influence of prescription sedatives and alcohol.
Justice Carol Corrigan, writing for the high court, rejected the defense contention that because the El Cajon shooting involved no more than gross negligence, it should not have been considered a crime of violence and not used as an aggravating sentencing factor.
Citing Penal Code Sec. 190.3, the justice explained that “the jury is permitted to consider the ‘presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence.’…The requisite ‘criminal activity’ must violate a penal statute and ‘the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence’ must be directed at a person.”
The evidence, Corrigan said, showed that Thomas fired a gun—the same one used in the home-invasion robbery—at the residence of a man who had been an altercation with Halstead earlier. Firing a gun near a person’s home, in a residential neighborhood and after making a threat against that person, satisfies the elements of Penal Code Sec. 246.3(a), which makes it a crime to fire a gun in a “grossly negligent manner which could result in death for injury to a person,” the justice wrote.
The case is People v. Thomas, S082828.
Copyright 2011, Metropolitan News Company
To view complete original transcript click here
People vs Thomas – Findlaw
Supreme Court of California.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Correll Lamont THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S082828.
Decided: July 28, 2011
Barry L. Morris, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens, Annie F. Fraser and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Correll Lamont Thomas was convicted of the first degree murder of Creed Grote and the attempted murder of Troy Ortiz. He was also convicted of the second degree murder of Ricky McDonald.1 As special circumstances of the Grote murder, the jury found that defendant lay in wait,2 discharged a firearm from a vehicle with intent to inflict death,3 and committed multiple murders.4 It also found that defendant personally used a firearm5 in the Grote/Ortiz crimes, and that he thereby intended to inflict great bodily injury or death upon Grote.6 Finally, the jury found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law.7 Defendant was sentenced to death.
This appeal is automatic. We affirm the judgment.
- Defense Evidence
The defense theory was that defendant could not have formed the intent to kill Grote because he was under the influence of prescription sedatives and alcohol.
It was stipulated that defendant had received an initial supply of Mellaril (thioridazine) and Desyrel (trazadone) from a physician three months earlier. The prescription authorized one refill. The record was silent as to whether it had been refilled.
Defense psychiatrist Dr. Clark Smith testified that Mellaril is a “major tranquilizer.” Users report that their thought processes are slowed down so much that they have trouble keeping up with the world around them. Desyrel is such a powerful sedative that it is not commonly prescribed any longer as an anti-depressant, but only as a sleep aid. Alcohol is also a tranquilizer. Ordinarily, it would have an additive effect when ingested with Mellaril or Desyrel. However, the combination might also result in agitation.
Arlene Thomas, defendant’s wife, testified that he became angry when he took Mellaril and/or Desyrel with alcohol. She saw him take Mellaril and Desyrel with water on June 5th or June 6th, 1996. According to Don Juan Thompson and his girlfriend Vilma Gold, defendant drank a great deal on the night of June 5, 1996, and was quite intoxicated. On cross-examination, Thompson admitted he had lied on another unrelated occasion to protect defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.