Death penalty cases in California have two phases. The first determines guilt and the second decides the penalty. A possibly exculpatory eyewitness to a murder and an attempted murder could not be located during the guilt phase of a recent case before the Supreme Court of California. The witness was available for the penalty phase, but the trial judge barred his testimony. The convicted man appealed his death sentence, and the high court ruled that the trial judge should have allowed it. His failure to do so, however, was found to be harmless error.

Tupoutoe Mataele, the defendant and appellant, was found guilty of the murder of Danell Johnson and the attempted murder of John Masubayashi. The jury also found that he had used a firearm in both murders. The jury “returned a verdict of death,” partly due to his sentence being enhanced by convictions for firearms and consideration of his previous felony convictions.

In death penalty cases, an appeal is automatic, thus the California Supreme Court reviewed the decision of Orange County Superior Court Judge James A. Stotler in People v. Mataele on July 21. Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote the opinion with concurrences from five justices. Three other justices filed separate concurrences and partial concurrences and dissents.

Although the court was split on several issues, Cantil-Sakauye summed up the key point in the court’s ruling. She said the absent eyewitness, Matthew Towne, who saw a “shooter of medium build with black skin” from across a dark parking lot, could only have provided evidence that “pales in comparison to the evidence at the guilty phase.” Thus, the judgment was affirmed and remanded for the “limited purpose” of considering whether a new California Senate bill would strike Mataele’s firearm and his previous felony enhancements.

Towne’s barred testimony was important because his description of the shooter did not match the appearance of the defendant. Towne also told the police that the parking lot where the shooting occurred was dark and had poor lighting. Mataele was described as weighing over 300 pounds and wearing dark jeans and a plaid flannel shirt. Towne told the police that the man he saw was “slim,” which described co-defendant Ryan Carillo. The dissent agreed. But Cantil-Sakauye said the dissenting justice ignored the weight of testimony from several witnesses whom the jury found credible.

Since he did not testify at trial, Towne’s description was hearsay. The Court found no reason to admit it. In addition, other witnesses also described the shooter as “heavyset” and wearing dark clothing, while Carillo’s clothing was white. In addition, witnesses heard Mataele brag about the killing. Carillo testified for the prosecution as part of a plea bargain.

Cantil-Sakauye said Towne’s testimony would have been relevant and admissible at the guilt phase and should have been admitted at that time because it “cannot be deemed cumulative or a waste of judicial resources.” She wrote that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding it. However, she concluded that “the trial court’s error was harmless and did not affect the verdict.”

Mataele presented evidence that he hoped would show that it was Carillo, not he, who shot the two men. He also had witnesses testify about Carillo’s frequent use of methamphetamines which would make him confused and unable to grasp what was happening.

The evidence presented by the prosecution during the guilt phase of the trial gave lengthy descriptions of the “criminal enterprises” the defendant had engaged in with several others, most of whom were in various gangs, including the Sons of Samoa, of which Mataele was a member. Their crimes began with identity theft and bank fraud and evolved into buying and selling methamphetamines. The shooting of Johnson and Masubayashi came about as a result of disputes between the various gangs.

After hearing from his friends about problems with Johnson and Masubayashi, the defendant was heard to have “volunteered to kill Masubayashi,” saying “We’re going to handle them, take care of them” and “Let’s go smoke those motherfuckers.” Carillo said that the defendant owned a .357 magnum handgun. On the way to find Johnson, Mataele was heard repeatedly announcing that he would kill Johnson and Masubayashi. He did not completely succeed. Masubayashi was shot but taken to a hospital, where he told the police that Mataele had shot him. Johnson died from a gunshot to his brain from either a .38 or a .357 magnum. Mataele was found guilty.

The trial then entered the penalty phase where prosecutors introduced evidence of Mataele’s criminal history as well as victim impact testimony. The jury also learned of his involvement in two prior robberies and heard of hardships experienced by family members of the victim.

When it was his turn, the defendant argued that he should have not been given the death penalty, and he presented numerous witnesses who said he would be a good candidate for a successful life in prison.

The jury heard from experts on Tongan culture who described hardships that children like Mataele often experience while living with abusive fathers. His family, teachers and football coach described him as “kind, polite, and a good kid.” Several experts said he successfully passed neurological tests and was “very intelligent.” He was repeatedly described as someone who could “benefit from education and rehabilitation and was “a good candidate to live a productive and nonviolent life in prison.”

The Supreme Court opinion then discussed legal issues from both the guilt and penalty phases of Mataele’s trial. The excusal of two prospective jurors because of their opinion on the death penalty was challenged but found to be without merit.

Next, the defendant objected to the denial of his motion to dismiss because of a “nearly four-year interval between the shooting and the filing of an “amended felony complaint.” He argued that the delay violated his due process rights under both California and federal constitutions because of the “unavailability of exculpatory witnesses.” The trial court said the delay was caused by defendant’s “flight” from the crime scene and relocation to Utah. Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion found no constitutional violation because there was no “showing of actual prejudice” due to the passage of time. Similarly, the Supreme Court found no error in excluding hearsay evidence from several other witnesses and potential witnesses.

Finally, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of capital punishment in California. The opinion said the Supreme Court has “repeatedly considered and rejected such challenges and defendant offers no persuasive reason for us to reconsider its conclusion.” California’s last execution was in 2006. He may indeed have an opportunity to live a productive and nonviolent life in prison.