Thursday, April 30, 2026

People v. Stayner (Cal. Supreme Ct. - April 30, 2026)

I'll be honest that was difficult -- very difficult -- for me to pay detailed attention to every word of this 269-page (!!) opinion

(That count, by the way, does not include the many pages of the the partial dissent by Justice Evans.)

It's not that the opinion isn't important. It's involves the life or death, at least theoretically, of a human being, Cary Stayner, who's been sentenced to death.

The underlying difficulty is also largely not even the sheer size of the opinion. Though massive, even for a death penalty case, I've slogged through longer ones. (Though not many!) That task is doable, and indeed, I eventually did it here.

What made this one especially difficult for me was the outset of the opinion, which is where Chief Justice Guerrero understandably describes the underlying crimes. Once you've read that section, you know how the opinion is almost certainly going to come out, and in all honesty, at least for me, you're somewhat, if not wholly, sympathetic to that outcome.

Here's the first paragraph of the opinion:

"This case is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (Pen. Code,1 § 1239, subd. (b).) Defendant Cary Anthony Stayner used a ruse to enter the motel room of Carole Sund, her 15-year-old daughter Juli Sund, and their 16-year-old family friend Silvina Pelosso. Once inside the room, defendant brandished a gun and used duct tape to bind Carole and the girls. He murdered Carole by strangling her and murdered Silvina by strangling and suffocating her. Then, over the course of several hours, he repeatedly sexually assaulted Juli, after which he kidnapped her, sexually assaulted her again, and then murdered her by slitting her throat. About five months later, defendant kidnapped, murdered, and decapitated Joie Armstrong. Defendant confessed to his crimes in a detailed recorded interview."

It is difficult -- again, very difficult -- for someone to care deeply about formal "justice" in such a setting. Your retributive instincts are simply too strong.

That's even without learning, later on in the opinion, the additional details of these horrific murders. Or that after the murders, before he was caught, the defendant sent the FBI a letter that included a map of the location of one of the bodies (with his thumbprint on the stamp) that "included the words 'We had fun with this one.'”

After reading 269 pages, you get to Justice Evans partial dissent, who makes some very good points about why the death sentence here was perhaps the result of two very problematic events at the penalty phase. To reiterate: very good points.

But the facts of the case make you care less than perhaps you normally would. Or perhaps should.