Sparks in limbo; Rampone set to go; lawyers await word from the Big Guys

by Tom Nadeau

The separate yet entwined murder trials of Sparks and Rampone were taken up in Yuba County Superior Court Monday, with the first getting postponed and the second ordered to proceed.

Defense attorney Justin Scott asked visiting Judge R.M. Smith to delay the start of People v. Sparks. The US Supreme Court is still mulling whether Dustin William Sparks can be tried for homicide despite a legal premise established decades ago.

Smith agreed and set Sparks next court date for 1:30 p.m. Nov. 11. In rescheduling the matter, Smith said he had read the Sparks writ of certiorari and was clearly intrigued. Cow county judges don’t often get to rule, even marginally, in matters before the USSC.

Estoppel-ong Cassidy rides again ...

The legal premise in question is “collateral estoppel,” which holds that a defendant can not be tried in a new case on an issue the courts had resolved long before in a previous case.

Sparks is charged with special circumstances first-degree murder in the 2005 double-slaying of Christopher Hance and Scott Davis at an Olivehurst medical marijuana farm. Angelic Louise Rampone is charged with the same crimes from the same incident.

From such simple beginnings, the legal nuances of this multiple-defendant case keep getting more and more complicated.

As investigators paint the death scene, several people went to the fenced property to steal marijuana. Hance had legal permission to grow the marijuana for his father who used the natural drug to ease his severe physical pain.

When Hance and Davis accosted the thieves, one of the intruders, Michael Huggins, shot them dead.

As the Sparks defense recounts the incident, when the group arrived, only Huggins entered the property.

Sparks had either gotten cold feet or had decided that the scene was not playing out as he expected, so he stayed outside the fence. Driver Rampone remained in the vehicle.

When the shooting erupted, Sparks and Rampone fled the scene, according to earlier statements.

Triggerman Huggins was arrested and tried for special circumstances first-degree murder, but a Yuba County jury found him guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.

Jurors justified their verdict by saying they believed Huggins did not intend to rob or burglarize when he arrived at 3 a.m., armed with a loaded .45 caliber handgun. Huggins was still in prison at last report.

Meanwhile, the prosecution of Sparks and Rampone on special circumstances first-degree murder charges continued, with the defense arguing the two couldn’t be, since the actual killer had only been convicted of a much lesser crime.

The original judge, recently retired James Curry, ruled the pair could not be. The prosecution, now led by Deputy District Attorney Michael A. Byrne appealed Curry’s decision to California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, and won.

Undaunted, the Sparks defense appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court, and lost again.

The defense then had to decide whether to accept the state court ruling and stand trial, or should it take the crucial question to the US Supreme?

Rampone’s attorney, Roberto Marquez, decided to abide by the state Supreme Court ruling and go to trial.

The deceptively mild-mannered Scott, on the other hand, decided to go for it – to take Sparks all the way up to the Top Nine.

Appeals specialist attorney S. Michelle May of the Central California Appellate Program wrote the writ. She limned out the three main points the court was being asked to resolve:

1) When a state’s highest court overrules its own prior authority which had established that the State was prohibited from prosecuting a criminal charge, by a decision that is “unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue,” does the Due Process Clause permit the court to apply its decision retroactively in order to vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charge?

2) When a state’s highest court overrules its own prior authority which had established that the State was prohibiting from prosecuting a criminal charge, by a decision that is contrary to a statutory mandate of the state’s legislature, does the Due Process Clause, permit the court to apply its decision retroactively in order to vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charge?

3) In light of questions (1) and (2) above, should the Superior Court’s order prohibiting the State from prosecuting petitioner vicariously for felony-murder, on a traditional basis of vicarious liability collateral estoppel recognized by the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Taylor … which was overruled retroactively in this case be affirmed?

Prosecutor Byrne said that, if the USSC were to take up the Sparks writ, it would have no effect on Sparks’ trial here. The state Supreme Court and lower state court decisions had already dealt with the collateral estoppel issues raised in Taylor, Byrne felt.

So, Rampone will proceed to trial in about two weeks and Sparks should, too, after the Nov. 1 hearing, Byrne said.

The two trials were separated for “tactical reasons,” Byrne said.

Judge Smith set pre-trial court hearings in People v. Rampone for Oct. 15 and Oct. 18. The jury trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 19.