Iv .5 File No. 11F6931 STEPHEN S. CARLTON DISTRICT ATTORNEY Shasta County $31212 Wesct3 Street ing, A96001 (530) 245-6300 MAY uz AIMEE shastada@co.shasta. ca. us CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT BY: ELLEN BENSON, DEPUTY CLERK Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHASTA Redding Branch THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. 11?06931 Plaintiff, Trial Brief vs. Re: Theories of Murder JESSICA NICOLE BRADFORD, Dept: 8 Date: May 12, 2017 Defendant The People of the State of California, by and through their attorney, Senior Deputy District Attorney Kelly Kafel, hereby submit the following trial brief and motions in limine to assist the court in deciding issues in the case. I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Charged incident In the early morning hours of Monday, September 19, 2011, Jessica Bradford went into labor with a child that she had carried for 9 months. She had hidden the pregnancy from her family, her friends, her co-workers, and her boyfriend. At the time of the baby's birth, Bradford lived in a dorm-style complex with shared common rooms. Multiple female People's Trial Brief re: Theories??of 187 .?employees of the Julian Academy lived in the same dorm. Once her labor beg an, Bradford left her room for a secluded location under a deck behind the dorm. She gave birth to the baby outside, at night, under the deck. The baby girl was born alive. After the baby was born, Bradford kept the baby in her vehicle until she moved the her to an empty apartment on campus (aka: Pasture 2). The Julian Youth Academy covers approximately 250 acres and has multiple buildings. This vacant apartment was separated from the rest of the campus by a considerable distance. The baby was placed in the closet of one of the empty bedrooms. The baby was left alone. Later on that same Monday, Bradford her boyfriend and their friends drove to Redding to go bike riding and bar hopping. The group spent the evening in Redding and returned to the academy in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 20, 2011. The baby was still alive at this time. On Tuesday night, Bradford returned to Redding again. On this trip, she went grocery shopping. The baby was still alive at this time. On Wednesday, September 21, a maintenance worker from the school named Dwayne Smith was working in the area of the vacant apartment. He heard the cry of an infant from inside the vacant apartment. There were no cars anywhere around the apartment. He did not have a key to the locked apartment so he drove down to the school?s front office. He asked a staff supervisor, Mr. Morgan, if anyone was currently occupying the apartment. Mr. Morgan, informed him that no one should be in the apartment. The academy uses a handheld radio system to com radio system and carry a handheld unit. Mr. municate with its staff. All of the staff who work with students use the sam Smith called out over the rad People?s Trial Brief re: Theories of 187 io to see if anyone should be in the vacant apartment. Over coo-40?the radio, a female voice responded that no one was in the vacant apartment. Mr. Smith looked for the key to the vacant apartment. It was missing from its normal location in the main of?ce. Mr. Smith went to a shed to retrieve an extra key. With the key in hand, he drove back up toward the apartment. The road up to the vacant apartment is only wide enough for one car at a time. Mr. Smith was forced to wait for a car that was coming down the road. As the car passed him, Mr. Smith recognized the vehicle and its owner as Jessica Bradford. She was coming from the area of the vacant apartment. Mr. Smith continued to the apartment and used the key to get in. The crying had stopped and the apartment was vacant. From the baby?s birth on September 19 until September 22, the defendant provided no food and no water to the baby. On or near, Thursday, September 22, 2011, the baby died. On November 6, 2011, an employee of the academy contacted law enforcement to report that a dead infant baby girl had been seen in the room of employee Jessica Bradford. Law enforcement arrived and ultimately located the baby hidden in a laundry basket tucked under a shelf in a utility room adjacent to Jessica Bradford?s room. The baby appeared to be a ?mummified? full term baby with a dark head of hair. Bradford was interviewed by law enforcement and disclosed that she hid her pregnancy and did not tell anyone anything about it. Bradford stated she did not seek pre- natal care as she was not ready to have a baby, it would disrupt her life. She further claimed that she and her boyfriend would have been fired from theirjobs if she had a baby, and her friends and family would judge her if she had a baby. She did nothing to prepare for the birth of the baby. People?s Trial Brief re: Theories?of 187 The autopsy concluded that the baby was born full term. The cause of death could not be determined because of the signi?cant postmortem decomposition. At the time of the original autopsy the examining forensic pathologist could not rule out dehydration. starvation or some other form of traumatic death. This baby was later named Lilly. Belle (Baby 1) During the initial stages of the investigation regarding baby Lilly, it was learned the defendant had given birth to another baby 18 months earlier. At that time, Bradford was working at the same location and dating the same man. According to medical records, on March 18, 2010, Bradford's water broke. Two days later she informed her boyfriend that she was having severe menstrual cramps and needed to go to the hospital. She arrived at Mercy Hospital with a fever, and in labor. Belle (baby#1) was born and lived 3 hours before she was removed from life support and died. Bradford told medical staff that she had taken three abortion pills two months before the birth and believed she had aborted the baby. Bradford stated she did not seek prenatal care as she was not ready to have a baby. It would disrupt her life. She was ?having fun? now. She continued to drink hard alcohol and was enjoying her life even after she realized she was pregnant. Bradford claimed that she and her boyfriend would have been fired from their jobs if she had a baby and her friends and family would judge her if she had a baby. Hospital staff reports that she appeared happy that the baby had died. Bradford hid the pregnancy from all of her friends and family including the father of the baby. Her boyfriend did not know she was pregnant until the baby was born. She did nothing to prepare for the birth of the baby. m4_ People?s Trial Brief re: Theories of 18:! \l ?3 A The cause of death was listed as perinal perinatal meoonium aspiration acute choriomnionitts and fungisitis, other significant conditions were congenital adrenal maternal alcohol use during pregnancy This baby was later named Belle II. TRIAL BRIEF At THEORIES OF MURDER In this case, the defendant is charged with the murder of Lilly Castillo (aka Baby Jane Doe). Section 189 of the California Penal Code sets forth the various theories under which a defendant may be convicted of first degree murder In a case in which the facts support multiple theories of first degree murder, there is no requirement for iury unanimity on the speci?c theory of first degree murder. (People Vt Scott (1991) 229 Cal.App 3d 707, 718) The facts of this case support two possible theories of first degree murder. (1) premeditated and (2) deliberate murder and felony murder A pleading charging a defendant with first degree murder in terms of malice aforethought and premeditatiori ?adequately noti?es a defendant of the possibility of coriwction of first degree murder on a felonyrmurder theory." (People Moore (2011) 51 Cal 41h 386? 412, People V. Lemer& (2010) 50 Cal 4th 99? 141 Felony-murder and premeditated murder are not separate or distinct crimes) but rather different varieties of the same crime? and need not be separately pled (People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal 4th 386, 412: People Hewrhome (2009) 46 CalAth 67, 69, People Vt WI/Sali (2008charging document that states the offense in the language of the statute defining murder (Pen Code 187), charges an offense that includes murder of the first degree and murder in the second degree. (People v. Hawthorne (2009) 46 Cal 4th 67? 89.) People?s Trial Brief re Theories pl 137 1. WILLFUL, PREMEDITATED, AND DELIBERATE MURDER For purposes of ?rst degree murder, these three categories ofevrdence are typically sufficient to sustain a ?nding of premeditation and deliberation. though they need not be present In any special combination or accorded any particular weight 1. facts about a defendant?s behavior before the incident that show planning 2 facts about any prior relationship or conduct with the Victim from which the jury could infer a motive; 3. factors about the manner of killing from which the jury could Inter the defendant intended to kill the victim according to a preconceived plan (People v. Vorise (1999) 72 Cal App 4th 312') In California, when manner of killing evidence strongly suggests premeditation and deliberation that evidence is enough? by itself, to sustain a conviction for murder (Dryden v. White (2000) 532 US. 954.) 2. FELONY MURDER Penal Code sectlon 189 also includes murder ?committed in the perpetration of? several enumerated felonies as murder in the first degree. Included in this list is kidnapping Therefore. if a killing is committed during the perpetration of these crimes? It is first degree murder whether or not the killing is intentional No intent to kill need be shown since the mental state required is simply the speci?c intent to commit the underlying felony (People v. Dominguez (2006) 39 Cal 4th HM. 1158.) ?The ?substantive statutory de?nition' of the crime of first degree felony-murder in this state does not include either malice or premeditationi These elements are eliminated by the felonyrmurder doctrine, and the only criminal intent required is the speci?c intent to commit the particular felony. Because the felonyrmurder rule does not raise a presumption of the existence of an element of the crime, it does not violate the due process clause." People?s rriai Brier}; 11150785 5i liar (People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Catao 441, 475-476, abrogated by statute as stated in People 2 v. Sarun Chun (2009) 45 Cath 1172, 1185-1186 [re whether Legislature intended to abrugate common felony murder rule], see also Calms V, Superlor Court (1953) 35 Cal 3d 131, 133.) Murder or the ?rst degree is committed when the perpetrator intended to commit one ot the enumerated retonies in Penal Code section 139 The ?killing need not occur in the midst or the commission or the teiony, so long as the tetony is not merely incidental to, 9 or an atterthought to, the killing.? (People Bacon (2010) 50 Cal 4th 1052, 1118; People 10 v, Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1259, People v, Elliot (2005) 37 oat.4th 453, 469, quoting People Froctor(1992) 4 Cal 4th A99, 532.) Felonyrmurder does not require a strict causal relationship between the felony and 13 the homicide, The homicide is considered to be part of the perpetration or the felony it the 5 two were part of one continuous transaction, The exislence ol such a single transaction is re a July question (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 20 CalAth 1083. 1141, People Sakanas 17 (2000) 22 Cal 4th 595, 524.) [8 There is no requirement that the killing advance or fastlitate the undenying felony in order to prove guil1 of first?degreemurder under the felony-murder rule. (People v.5acon 2 21 (2010) 50 Cal,4 tt 1052, 1118, People V. Cal/llt(2004) 33 Cal 41h 187, 198,) 22 When the corpus - delicti of murder has been shown, the delendant?s extratudimal statements may be admitted to prove the underlying felony (or felony-murder even if the 24 felony cannot be proved by evidence other than the delendant?s statements (People 25 Weaver (2001) 26 Cal 4th 876, 929.) 26 The defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict as to the particular manner in 27 which any felony?murder occurred (People v, Memra (1995) 11 Cal 11th 785, 870 28 Tlial Brier re Ttlaones ot 1&7 . V. (2011) 52 Cal 4th 610? 639? 13,) Jur need not unanimously agree on a theory of ?rst degree murder as either felony-murder or murder with premeditetion and deliberation, Nothing requires a unanimous jury verdict as to the particular theoryjustirying a rinding of ?rst degree murder. 7 (People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal 4th 385. 413, People V. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal 4th 593, 3 B17 There is no requirement that the jurors be instructed they must agree unanimously 9 on theory or ?rst degree murder, (People v. Hawthorne r2009Concurrent intent to kill and to commit the target lelony or felonies does not . . undermine the beers for a ielony-murder (People V, Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1 053napping 15 Even if lorce is not used in the conventional sense a wrongful intent in carrying aft 16 an inrant is sut?cient to constitute ?force" for purposes or the kidnapping statute. (People v. ?7 Dominguez (2010) 180 Cal App 4th 1351) 19 The amount 01 force required to kidnap an infant or child is simply the 20 amount 01 physical force required to take and Carry the Child away a substantial distance 21 for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent (People VV F?Iatz (2006) 136 CatAppAth 22 1091) 23 The only lorce required to kidnap an Infant or Child who does not resist for 25 purposes of proving the lorce element of kidnapping statute. is the amount necessary to 26 move the Victim a substantial distance 1- 2- 'llegal purpose or with an illegal intent (in re 27 Michele (2002) 29 Cal 4th 500) 28 People?s Trial Brier re Theorteenl157 A parent who '8 entitled custodial rigms for i? to custody iS liable for kidnapping If he or . egal purpose (People Senior(1992) 3 Caueation aI.App.4lh 765) When there are 0 1h oneurrent causes of death, if death would not have a WI out the criminal a mung ct, such act Is a proximate cause of the death if it was a substantial a or contributin to the death, even If the Victim's preexisting physical condition was also a substantial factor. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th Si, 155) CONCLUSION This Trial Brief is not intended to be exhaustive of all the Issues that may potentially be raised before and during the taking of evidence. Additional motions Will be filed that address the admissibility and probative value of evrdence highlighted herein Dated: May 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN S. CARLTON DISTRICT ATTORNEY KELLY KAFEL SENIOR DEP TY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 7 Eapiie?sVTnaTBnei; Theories at 167