PEOPLE v. CAGE (MICKY RAY)

Appellant’s March 1, 2015, and March 15, 2015, Letters

Cal.March 25, 2015

SUPREME COURT COPY — Susan K. Masse aw | LY 9462 Winston Drive Lj Brentwood, TN 37027 (615)661-0661 March 1, 2015 Regine Ho, Deputy Clerk California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 S\2®5$3 exe V: Dag (Hieey Foy,\ Dear Ms. Ho, Per our recent communications,I am enclosing the missing pages (numbe rs 147 and 148) of the Appellant's Opening Brief in People v. Micky Cage, $120583. It app ears that these pages were omitted from the AOB whenthe documentwas sentfor printing. T he error went undetectedfor years, and I had not noticed the absence of these pages unti l you contacted me. It took me sometime to recover the pages as the computerI used to write th e AOB hadsince crashed andthe back up, a removable drive, was stored away andhadto be located. In any event, the missing pages are now restored andthe Court andall parties will ha ve a complete version of the AOB. With respectto the enclosed pages,the page numberin g and formatting differs slightly from thatin the final version of the brief due to subsequent editing of other section of the document. However, the enclosed pages contain the exacttext of tho se which were inadvertently left out of the AOB. Please contact me if you need anythingelse. SUPREME COURT / FILED f jj MAR 25 2015 tt Yili Uy Yip Frank A. McGuire Cierk Susan K. Massey Deputy DEATH PENALTY Susan K. Massey 9462 Winston Drive Brentwood, TN 37027 (615)661-0661 March 15, 2015 Regine Ho, Deputy Clerk California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Ms. Ho, Enclosed herewith are the missing pages (numbers 147 and 148) of the Appellant's Opening Brief in People v. Micky Cage, S120583. The revisions you requested have been madeandall parties have been served. Please contact me if you need anythingelse. Very truly yours, Susan K. Massey in the course oftheir careers.“ Forall ofthe reasons discussed below, the nine photographs should not have been admitted. The trial-court’s decision to allow this evidence was an abuseof its discretion. In the emotionally charged climate ofthis case, theadditional prejudice created by these horrifying images deprived appellant of any chance for a fair trial. B. The Proceedings Below. The parties addressed the crime scene and autopsy photographs on the morningofthe first day oftrial, July 31, 2003. (See 2 RT 302; 2 CT 550-554.) The proposed exhibits at issue were twenty-one photographs from the crime scene and the victims autopsies. The photos may be groupedasfollows:five showedthe victims as they were foundat the scene (People’s Exh. Nos. 33, 34, 39, 40, and 41); nine photos were taken during Bruni’s autopsy (People’s Exh. Nos. 69 through 77); seven photos were from David’s autopsy (People’s Exh. Nos. 81 through 8745 Ofthese twenty-one proffered exhibits, defense counsel was particularly concerned about“approximately 15 gory pictures.” (2 RT 304.) Before hearing any argumenton the subject, the trial judge directed the 44 See, e.g., 8 RT 1094 [testimony of Jess Gutierrez]; 11 RT 1523, 1530-1532 _ [testimony of Michelle Amicone]. , 45 Several other exhibits are interspersed with the objectionable photographs. People’s Exhibit No. 35 is noted for “I.D.” and is described as a photo of slug #15. People’s Exhibit No. 38 is described as a casing, while the description ofPeople’s Exhibit No. 78 states only “photo.” (See 13 CT 3612-3614.) i47 Pennle v Canoe AOR lawyers to negotiate offthe record to reach some agreements. The court expressed the hope that counsel would compromise to the greatest extent possible, leaving fewer disputed items to litigate. (2 RT 302-305.) 46 Whenthe court reconvened, counsel reported that they had narrowed down the set of disputed items “a little bit.” (2 RT 315.) Defensecounsel made a numberof concessions,ultimately maintaining objections to only nine of the proffered photos. From the original set of seven pictures from David Burgos’s autopsy, the defense maintained objections to only two photos. “One was a view ofthe chest with a probe showing the entry and exit path ofthe wound. (2 RT 317-318; People’s Exh. No. 83.) The other was a photo showing both wounds from the chest and the elbow and large * It is not entirely clear which photographs were consideredatthis juncture. The prosecutor indicatedthat the discussion encompassed approximately 40 items of evidence, although notall ofthese were photographs. (2 RT 303.) The clerk had already marked for identification People’s Exhibits Nos. 1 through 91. (2 CT 550-554.) 47 The prosecutor agreednot to offer the two duplicative photos, and the trial court admitted the remaining five photos over defense objections. (2 RT 321.) 148, Daanlaa Carn AMD DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL Case Name: People v. Micky Ray Cage Case Number: Crim. SO120583 Riverside County Superior Court No. RIF-083394 I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my place of employment and business address is 9462 Winston Drive, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027. On Maren. , 2015, I servedthe attached COVER LETTER AND PAGES OMITTED FROM APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed to each of the persons named below at the addresses shown, and by sealing and depositing said envelope(s) in a United States Postal Service mailbox at Brentwood, Tennessee, with postage thereon fully prepaid. California Appellate Project Hon. Dennis McConaghy 101 Second St., 6" floor c/o Office ofthe Clerk San Francisco, CA 94105 Riverside County Superior Court 4100 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501 Micky Ray Cage Theodore Cropley San Quentin State Prison Deputy Attorney General PO Box V-13961 California Attorney General's Office San Quentin, CA 92501 PO Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 I declare under penalty of perjury, according to the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 2015, at Brentwood, Tennessee.3? Susan K. Massey