People v. Shove

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THEODORE CHURCHILL SHOVE III, Defendant and Appellant. S161909 Los Angeles County Superior Court BA271293 August 13, 2026 Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Groban, and Earl* concurred. Justice Evans filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Liu concurred. * Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.  PEOPLE v. SHOVE S161909 Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. A jury convicted defendant Theodore Churchill Shove III of the first degree murders of Hubert and Elizabeth Souther. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found Shove guilty of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and three counts of sending a threatening letter for extortion (Pen. Code, § 523). The jury found true multiple murder (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and murder-for-financial-gain (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(1)) special-circumstance allegations. At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the punishment at death. The trial court denied Shove’s motion for a new trial and automatic motion to modify the death verdict and entered a judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The prosecution presented evidence that Shove masterminded a murder, burglary, and extortion scheme in a ploy to obtain a business owned and operated by the Souther family. The scheme included hiring a friend to kill Hubert and Elizabeth Souther, thereby transferring control of the business to the couple’s adult children; burglarizing the business’s safe; and then, under a false identity, attempting to extort money from the children. 1  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. A. Guilt Phase 1. Prosecution Case a. The Souther Family and Cal Aero Hubert Souther founded Cal Aero, an aerospace surplus hardware business, in 1975. At the time of their killing in 2001, Hubert and his wife, Elizabeth,1 were 79 and 81 years old, respectively. The Southers’ daughters, Collette Kingsley and Allison Renck, each owned a 26 percent interest in Cal Aero, held company titles, and received regular paychecks. Collette’s husband, Christopher Kingsley, was a manager at Cal Aero. Allison and her husband, Kenneth Renck, had operated a satellite Cal Aero store in Murrieta. William Vann was Cal Aero’s president. Hubert kept large sums of cash, valuables, and important documents in a safe located in Cal Aero’s lunchroom area and would sometimes give Vann up to $25,000 from that safe to buy merchandise for the business at auction. b. The plan to purchase Cal Aero Stanley Steves was the owner of a salvage business, Industrial Salvage. Steves met Shove in 1984 and they remained friends over the years; in 2000, Shove began assisting Steves with matters at Industrial Salvage, although Shove was never employed by or on the payroll of, nor did he hold a title at, Industrial Salvage. Approximately six months before the Southers’ murder, Shove began expressing to Steves an interest in purchasing Cal Aero. 1 For clarity, persons sharing the same surname will be referred to by their first names. 2  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Steves knew both Hubert and Vann. In 1984, Steves met Hubert and the two maintained a business and social relationship until Hubert’s murder. Steves and Vann had known each other for about 10 years through their respective business dealings. In 2000 or 2001, Steves introduced Shove to Vann. Shove immediately and frequently thereafter expressed interest in buying Cal Aero and it became a topic of conversation every time Shove and Vann spoke. Shove spearheaded efforts to purchase the business and asked Steves to be his partner. When Vann asked how he would get the money to buy Cal Aero, Shove told Vann that money was not an issue, and that Shove could get money from the “mafia” to purchase Cal Aero. Shove, Steves, and Vann were all acquainted with Jack Reiland and Monte Proulx, who were principals of Deft Kemp, a company that did business similar to Cal Aero. The five men met multiple times to discuss the possibility of forming a company to purchase Cal Aero. Vann testified that Shove “became more obsessed” with purchasing Cal Aero over time. Just before the murders, Shove would call Vann almost every day and express his desire to obtain the company. Witnesses testified that Shove was both persuasive and intimidating. As discussed below (see pt. II.D, post), Shove would regularly use the alias “Tony Bonanno” and reference his purported connections to the mafia, though there was no evidence that Shove was connected to organized crime. Vann testified that when Shove referred to Monte Proulx, Shove would reference “Monte’s Army,” which Shove claimed was a group of Mexican nationals who would perform clandestine operations in the United States using “night scopes” and “high- caliber weapons.” Shove told Vann “that they were his enforcers 3  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. and that they would take care of any kind of problems or people or jobs he needed done.” Testimony differed over whether Hubert was interested in selling Cal Aero. Both Collette, one of the Southers’ daughters, and B.G., the Southers’ attorney, denied that Hubert had expressed any intent to sell the business, while Steves and Vann testified that Hubert was entertaining the thought. Shove told Vann that it would not be a problem if Hubert would not sell Cal Aero because Shove already had a deal with Allison and Kenneth, the Southers’ other daughter and her husband, who Shove knew to be major shareholders. Allison’s and Kenneth’s daughter testified that about one week before her grandparents were murdered she answered a call on the house phone at around 5:00 p.m. from a person who identified himself as “Mike Powers.” The man stated that he wanted to speak to Allison about buying Hubert’s business. Records established that Shove called the Renck residence’s land line telephone at 5:49 p.m. and 7:01 p.m. on September 9, and twice again on the afternoon of September 13. The Rencks’ daughter testified that her mother did not return the call because “it was just kind of ridiculous because we knew my grandpa wouldn’t sell the business.” c. The Southers’ murders On Monday, September 17, 2001, Hubert and Elizabeth were discovered bludgeoned to death in their bed. Evidence indicated that Shove’s friend, Lewis Hardin, was the killer.2 2 Hardin was jointly tried with Shove and also convicted of the murders, and the jury found true the murder-for-financial- gain and multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations. 4  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Shove and Hardin met in 2000 or 2001. Hardin socialized at Shove’s house and sold him cocaine. Hardin’s girlfriend testified that Hardin did not have a regular job in 2001; Hardin told her he had a job with Shove but did not explain further. About one week before the murders, the Southers’ home was broken into through the side kitchen door’s window and money was stolen from Hubert’s pants. The house had an operable alarm system, and the Southers’ daughters urged their parents to set it, but they generally would not because of their cats. The Southers did not report the incident to the police. Vann testified that a week before the murders, Shove told him that he had participated in what Shove called a “dry run”; Shove related that he and somebody else had burglarized Hubert’s house through the side door to “send a message to the old man.” Shove stated they had parked on the street above the house and Shove waited in the car while his unnamed accomplice went through a neighbor’s backyard and into the side of the house. Shove told Vann, “[T]hat should be enough to have [Hubert] sell the business to [Shove].” The Southers were last seen alive at their home at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Saturday, September 15, 2001. On the morning of Monday, September 17, Shove called Vann several times and told him to “expect some good news.” Concern arose when Hubert did not show up to Cal Aero that morning and calls to the Souther residence went unanswered. Collette went to the house to check on her parents and noticed that the glass on the side kitchen door was broken and the door was ajar. Collette entered the house, called out for her parents, and (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(1), (3).) At the penalty phase, the jury fixed Hardin’s punishment at life in prison without the possibility of parole. 5  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. discovered them lying on their bed, covered in blood. Collette immediately knew they were dead. The side kitchen door had pry marks and appeared to be the entry point. There was blood on and around the door, and a trail of blood went from the door out towards the rear of the property, along the pool, and to a back wall, where a bloody handprint and other bloodstains were discovered. The other side of the wall was an ivy-covered slope abutting the street that appeared to have been walked through. The phone line had been disconnected at the phone box located on the back of the house. No valuables were taken from the residence. Testing revealed that Hardin’s DNA matched blood samples taken from the kitchen and living room floors, outside the kitchen door, and the backyard. None of the blood samples from the scene matched anyone other than Hardin or the Southers. Hardin’s girlfriend testified that Hardin left for a few days sometime between September 11 and the end of the month, and when she saw him again, he had a deep cut on the palm of his right hand; Hardin refused to seek medical attention. Hardin told his girlfriend it was none of her business, to forget what she saw, and to make sure nobody was following her. When Hardin was arrested for the murders three years later, scarring was observed on his right palm. The Southers had sustained blunt force injuries, including skull fractures and multiple lacerations and abrasions to the head and face, consistent with having been struck with a tire iron, an impression of which was found on the bedspread. Hubert had potential defensive injuries to his hands. Hubert’s cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head; Elizabeth’s cause of death was the combined effect of blunt force trauma to the head and asphyxiation by smothering. It could not be 6  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. determined whether there was more than one perpetrator or weapon. The medical examiner estimated that the Southers died sometime between 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 15, and 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, September 16. The Saturday newspaper was disassembled on the back patio counter, but the Sunday and Monday newspapers were undisturbed on the driveway. Phone records reflected numerous calls between Hardin and Shove on September 14 through 16. Shove called Hardin eight times throughout the day on the Friday before the murders. Between 3:16 p.m. and 9:16 p.m. on Saturday, September 15, Shove placed six calls to Hardin’s residence. There were no calls between the two for almost three hours thereafter until midnight, when Hardin called Shove from his cell phone seven times between 12:00 a.m. and 1:33 a.m. on Sunday. Hardin also used his cell phone to call his home at 1:41 a.m. and 4:21 a.m. Hardin again called Shove from his cell phone at 4:24 a.m., and from 7:12 a.m. to 11:54 p.m., Shove and Hardin called each other 19 times throughout the day. Shove indicated to Vann that he was involved in the murders, stating that “they” did the “dry run” the same way they did the murders, though Shove never named who else was involved. Shove told Vann that he parked his car above the Souther residence but did not go inside. Shove did not express any remorse and told Vann that “the old man . . . deserved it.” Sometime after Hardin’s girlfriend saw the cut on his hand, she overheard Hardin talking to Shove on the telephone; Hardin was upset and asking when he was going to be paid. In October, Hardin’s girlfriend overheard an argument at their apartment during which Hardin asked Shove about money and Shove said “not yet” because he “had to go” or “had to send” 7  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. somebody to “clean your fucking mess.” Sometime after the murders, Shove’s wife heard a voicemail message Hardin left on Shove’s phone “demand[ing] his money” and threatening “to go to the sheriff and tell them what he knew” if he did not get it. Also after the murders, Shove’s daughter listened in on a phone call between Shove, Hardin, and someone Hardin identified as his cousin who said, “we had a deal” and “you’re constantly late with your end of it.” Shove responded, “you better remember who you’re talking to,” and “if I said it’s going to be there, it’s going to be there.” On two occasions after the murders, Shove’s daughter delivered sealed envelopes to Hardin at her father’s request. d. Cal Aero safe burglary The day after the victims’ bodies were discovered, the safe in the Cal Aero lunchroom was burglarized. During the month preceding the murders, Shove asked Vann information about the Cal Aero safe and expressed his belief that there was gold stored inside. Vann provided the name and “probably” the serial number of the safe and told Shove that he believed it contained $100,000 and jewelry. Vann testified that Shove called him five or six times the day the murders were discovered and told Vann that night would be the best time to break into the safe “before the kids could get into it.” Phone records established that Shove called Vann numerous times throughout that day. Vann told Shove that he had other commitments and that the Southers had been murdered, to which Shove had “no reaction at all.” On Tuesday, September 18, Collette, Allison, and their spouses went to Cal Aero and inventoried the items in the safe. Both daughters had the combination. They removed Hubert’s coin collection, $1,900 in cash, and some other personal 8  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. property, while important documents were returned to the safe. That day, Shove again called Vann insisting they break into the safe that night. Vann met Shove, Steves, and Proulx at a restaurant and explained that the Souther children had already emptied the safe, but Shove stated, “ ‘there’s no way they could have got all of it,’ ” and that he was “ ‘after something else that’s in there.’ ” Vann was ultimately persuaded to participate in the burglary. Steves testified it was discussed that Vann would assist Shove and Proulx in getting into Cal Aero, and Steves excused himself from the conversation because he did not want to be involved. Vann, Shove, and Proulx arrived at Cal Aero at approximately 5:15 p.m. that night. Shove opened the back door with a key and Vann helped carry some equipment inside before leaving; Vann did not know why Shove had a key to Cal Aero. Vann later returned and helped Shove and Proulx carry out tools; Shove told Vann the safe was empty except for some papers. Steves also testified that Shove told him that they had burglarized the safe, but it was empty. The next day, the safe was discovered empty; the bottom of the safe had been cut and all documents left in the safe, including Elizabeth’s will, were missing. e. Extortion plot A few days after the murders, Shove called the Southers’ attorney, B.G., and said that he had been negotiating with Hubert about purchasing the business and that he would like to continue doing so. B.G. told Shove that he knew nothing about that but to submit something in writing at the appropriate time and B.G. would present it to the Souther daughters. A few days later, B.G. received a proposal in the mail to purchase Cal Aero for $4 million. The letter had Industrial Salvage’s return 9  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. address, was signed by Shove, and stated that Steves of Industrial Salvage and Reiland of Deft Kemp had been discussing the terms of a sale with Hubert, and that they still wished to proceed with their offer. Steves testified that this was not a true statement and that he had not authorized Shove to send the letter. On October 4, B.G. spoke to Shove on the telephone, who stated that he was prepared to offer $5 million, but B.G. told Shove he believed Cal Aero to be worth at least $6.5 to $7 million. Shove expressed his intent to continue pursuing the purchase of Cal Aero, telling Vann “that he had $100,000 invested in this at this point and that he wasn’t going to let it go.” Shove told Vann that Shove “was going to have something on [Kenneth]” and would have his wife “Allison over a barrel and that she would sell it to him or do anything that he wanted her to do.” About a week after the murders, Shove called Vann and told him “to watch for the mail” and to report back on any reaction of Christopher, Collette’s husband. On September 24, Christopher received a letter at Cal Aero addressed to “Kenny, Owner, Cal Aero,” which read: “Kenny [¶] You hired me. You gave me my first money. I did the first job. You know I did the job. I did the second job but my owed money wasn’t there. [¶] This is proof I did the second job. Your guy didnt get the key to me til after midnight an still I got the job done. [¶] Leave a message at the springs number. [¶] Pay me my money.” Enclosed with the letter was the first page of Elizabeth’s will. Vann told Shove he observed Christoper run upstairs with a piece of mail; Shove told Vann that he sent the mail “to extort the family into selling [Shove] the business.” 10  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Shove owned a white Toyota 4Runner, and his wife testified that they let Proulx borrow it sometime in 2001 and that it was sometimes kept at Industrial Salvage. On October 9, a neighbor who shared a property line with the Rencks observed a white SUV drive into her driveway and spoke with the sole occupant, who identified himself as “Mike Powers” and stated that he was interested in real estate in the area. The neighbor later identified this man as Proulx from a photo lineup. The neighbor allowed Proulx to drive to the top of the property where there was a view of the area. Around 10:00 a.m. the next day, the neighbor again observed Proulx driving the SUV, the two spoke again, and Proulx again drove to the top of the property where he remained for about 20 minutes. On October 10, Allison and Kenneth went to Cal Aero to meet with B.G. and the company’s accountant; B.G. discussed Shove’s offer letter. While the Rencks were at this meeting, Kenneth’s mother went to the Renck residence and observed a white 4Runner backed up to the Rencks’ open garage door. She noted the vehicle’s license plate number, which matched Shove’s vehicle.3 Kenneth’s mother spoke with a man walking out of the garage who identified himself as “Mike Powers” and said he had a meeting with Kenneth at 2:00 p.m. about exchanging unregistered firearms. She later identified Reiland, Proulx’s coprincipal at Deft Kemp, from a photo lineup as the person most resembling the man she saw that day. She did not recognize Shove’s or Proulx’s photographs at trial. After the man left, Kenneth’s mother reported the incident to Kenneth and the police. 3 A few days before the murders, another of the Rencks’ neighbors observed a white Toyota 4Runner with the same license plate number in front of the Rencks’ driveway. 11  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Kenneth went home and met with police; though there were no signs of forced entry, they discovered footprints by the fence line at the back of the property. While police were still at the house, Kenneth received a call from a man who identified himself as “Mike Powers” and said that Hubert had hired his boss “to find out who was trying to murder him,” and that his boss had the killer in custody and did not like the way he had been paid. The caller also told Kenneth that he had evidence linking Kenneth to the murder, which the caller would sell to Kenneth for $300,000. Kenneth’s mother had answered the phone and testified that the caller’s voice sounded like that of the man she had encountered earlier. Vann testified that he was with Shove when Shove received a phone call from Proulx, who said Kenneth’s mother had seen him inside the Rencks’ garage. Shove told Vann that Proulx went to the Renck residence to get what had been removed from the safe but did not find anything. Vann overheard Shove say to Proulx: “[Y]ou stupid son-of-a-bitch. Why did you drive my truck?” Shove told Vann that he would have to report his truck stolen or have it taken to Mexico, and that Vann would be his alibi. Shove also told Vann that Shove was going to put more pressure on the Souther children, that he already had a deal with them, and that he intended to obtain the business. On October 18, “Mike Powers” again called the Renck residence. The caller asked to speak with Kenneth and told Allison that he had pictures of Kenneth and Allison paying $50,000 to the hitman who killed the Southers. The caller said the evidence would be sent to the district attorney if he could not see Kenneth that night. 12  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Sometime after the murders, Shove asked his daughter to report his 4Runner stolen, but she refused because she was not the owner and had seen the vehicle a couple of days before. On October 24, Shove reported to police that his 4Runner had been stolen from the Industrial Salvage lot sometime between October 20 and 24. The vehicle was discovered 10 months later, abandoned near the Mexican border in a remote area of San Diego County. The ignition had not been tampered with, which was unusual for a stolen car; a key could have been used to drive the vehicle. In late October, Christopher received a second suspicious envelope at Cal Aero addressed to Vann with a return address to “M. Powers,” postmarked October 26. Christopher thought the handwriting on the envelope looked similar to the prior letter. Inside the envelope addressed to Vann was another envelope addressed to “Mr. & Mrs. Ken Renick [sic] [¶] Condolences.” Inside that envelope was a lengthy unsigned typewritten letter addressed to “Detective Martinez”4 that purported to detail the motive for and commission of the murders. The letter alleged that Hubert discovered that Kenneth had been stealing money from the safe and planned to disinherit the Rencks, and that Kenneth then hired a killer. The killer allegedly met “one of his employers” at a restaurant and was paid $50,000 to commit the murder; the killer supposedly hired a “surveillance specialist” to record and photograph the meeting “for the killer to use as insurance.” The letter claimed that the first attempt on Hubert’s life was unsuccessful and that Hubert then “sent a letter with retainer to our group” to “locate 4 Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy Joseph Martinez was one of the lead detectives investigating the murders. 13  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. and neutralize the killer” and discover who had sent him. When “[w]e” attempted to contact Hubert “on Tuesday, 8 days after the killer’s first attempt,” Hubert had already been murdered. The killer was, however, identified and brought to Mexico. The killer admitted that the Rencks had hired him. The killer also purportedly cut the bottom of the safe with a grinder, but it was empty. The killer wrote a letter to Kenneth “demanding to be paid more money.” On November 7, Kenneth received an envelope addressed to “Mr. Ken Renick” with a return address to “Mike” in San Ysidro. Inside was a letter from “Mike” addressed to “Mr. & Mrs Ken Renick,” as well as a copy of the above-described letter to Detective Martinez. The letter claimed that Hubert “retained our organization to neutralize a threat to his life,” that they had the killer in custody in Mexico, and that they had evidence that “clearly indicate[s] the real perpetrators of the contract murder.” The letter offered to sell this evidence to the Rencks for $300,000. It concluded: “We can either clear you both by giving the Detectives leads away from you or give the District Attorney an irrefutable case. You can choose. We will contact you.” On November 26, Allison received a call at Cal Aero from “Mike Powers” who said that “Vann had the gold” and demanded Allison’s cell phone number; when Allison refused, the caller said, “[I]t’s your funeral.” On January 7, 2002, Shove and Steves went to Cal Aero and asked Allison if they could meet in private. Allison had known Steves through her father and recalled Shove’s name from the offer letter. Shove told Allison that Kenneth had called his cell phone and accused Shove of murdering the Southers. Allison told Shove that was untrue and that no one in her family would know his number. Shove and Steves told Allison that 14  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. they were no longer interested in the business. That was the only time Allison had ever met or discussed Cal Aero with Shove. f. Search, interviews, and arrests As detailed below in part II.A., officers executed a search warrant on Shove’s home, leading to the recovery of a laptop computer on which the unsigned letter to Detective Martinez was stored, and which had been used to print the letter. Vann admitted that he had lied when police first interviewed him shortly after the murders and burglary, and again in January of 2002. In these earlier encounters, Vann did not mention his involvement in the burglary, nor did he mention Shove; Vann instead told police that he believed Kenneth may have been involved. When Vann was arrested for burglary, extortion, and receiving stolen property on October 6, 2004, he decided to speak with police on these topics. The authorities and he agreed that nothing he related concerning the burglary could be used against him but that he could still be charged for the murders and extortion. On December 14, 2004, Vann pled guilty to commercial burglary in exchange for credit for time served and three years of probation, contingent upon testifying truthfully. 2. Defense Case To demonstrate that calls between Hardin and Shove and demands for payment related to drug transactions, not murder, the defense presented J.M., who lived at Shove’s house for a few months in 2001. J.M. knew Shove as Tony Bonanno, and understood the Bonannos were a mafia family. Shove claimed that he and some partners were going to purchase Paramount Studios and promised work in the film industry for J.M. and his 15  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. father. Sometime in 2001, J.M. met Hardin and Shove asked whether J.M. would be able to obtain cocaine from Hardin for personal use. Thereafter, J.M. acted as an intermediary between Shove and Hardin on several cocaine purchases before personally introducing the two. J.M. told a defense investigator that he hoped Shove did not “have anybody on the outside that could kill me.” In an effort to demonstrate that their phone calls at the time of the murder were consistent with their level of communication at the time, the defense presented a chart of phone calls between Hardin and Shove during June, July, and August of 2001. The chart reflects two calls in June, 74 calls in July, and 103 calls in August. The vast majority of these calls occurred between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The defense presented evidence to rebut the prosecution’s timeline of events. The Southers’ neighbors testified that at around 8:30 p.m. on September 15, 2001, their dogs were acting strange and barking in the direction of the Southers’ house. It took the defense investigator about an hour to drive from Hardin’s home to the Souther residence on a Saturday night at 7:30 p.m. with light traffic. The distance from Shove’s house to the Souther residence was about a 15- to 20-minute drive. Detectives testified that during the investigation they learned the Southers’ telephone was not working. Kenneth later notified them he had fixed the telephone and took them to the phone box, which would not be noticeable in the dark by anyone other than the residents or someone familiar with the area. Vann did not tell police that Shove ever explicitly said that he was at the murder scene, just that “they” had done the “dry run” in the same manner as the murders. Vann told police that he believed “Monte’s Army” had killed the Southers, given 16  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Shove’s statement that they were his enforcers; Vann also related his impression that Shove was behind everything. When police interviewed Vann on September 19, 2001, Vann stated that he thought Hubert usually kept about $300,000 in the safe. A Cal Aero employee testified that Vann left work at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the burglary. At around 5:00 p.m., after everyone had left work for the day, the employee was at a gas station across the street when he observed Vann drive into the empty Cal Aero parking lot. Vann got out of his car, looked in and around two sets of bushes in front of the business, and jiggled two sets of doors leading into the business and the upstairs loft. The employee then drove away. Vann was alone, and the employee did not see Vann meet with anybody. A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department forensic document examiner testified that she examined the proposal letter Shove sent to B.G., the letter “Mike” sent to the Rencks, and the letter addressed to Detective Martinez; there were no physical characteristics among the letters to indicate that they came from a common source, nor could a common source be ruled out. During the prosecution’s case, Hardin’s girlfriend had testified that it was cold and raining when she noticed the cut on Hardin’s hand sometime around the end of September or beginning of October in 2001. The court took judicial notice that there was no rainfall in the area from August through October of 2001. B. Penalty Phase 1. Prosecution Case The prosecution presented evidence that Shove had three prior convictions: a 1979 conviction for making a false 17  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. statement in a loan application and a threatening telephone communication, a 1980 conviction for robbery, and a 1988 conviction for theft. As to the robbery conviction, M.V. testified that he was in the rare coin business and had accompanied a client to a private residence to authenticate coins the client planned to purchase. When M.V. entered the residence, two masked men put guns to his head and escorted him and the client into the dining room, duct taped their hands behind their backs, and laid them face down on the floor. Two women were already bound and on the floor. Shove, the supposed seller, left with one of the gunmen to cash the client’s cashier’s checks; $4,000 in cash was taken from M.V.’s pocket. Shove’s older sister, M.J., testified that during an incident sometime in the late 1970’s, Shove shoved M.J., cracking three of her ribs, and repeatedly struck her. Shove also threatened M.J. via email and middle of the night phone calls and visits. He told M.J. he was going to kill her. On one occasion in 2000 or 2001, M.J. woke up at 2:00 a.m. and saw Shove outside the window pointing what appeared to be a gun at her; Shove said, “[B]ang, you are dead,” and disappeared. J.H. testified that in 1987 or 1988, he was driving on a freeway when he tried to enter the same lane as Shove, resulting in one vehicle cutting the other off. They exchanged obscene hand gestures, after which J.H. believed the situation to be over. But when he pulled into a gas station about ten miles later, Shove approached and pointed a gun to the back of J.H.’s head and said, “Today is your last day on earth,” or “Today you are going to die,” and repeatedly called J.H. a racial epithet. Shove’s ex-wife, C.M., testified that Shove was physically violent with her during their marriage. When C.M. told Shove she wanted a divorce, Shove said that he would take C.M. to a 18  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. rural area, kill her, and bury her body so she would never be found. On another occasion, Shove strangled and tried to smother C.M. with a pillow, locked her in the bedroom, and threatened to “finish [her] off” if she yelled out. C.M. described Shove as a manipulative liar. Shove’s third wife, A.M., testified that Shove was regularly violent toward her, including incidents in which Shove strangled her, beat her, and tried to run her over with a car. Shove also threatened to kill A.M. and told her that he knew how to kill a person. R.H., Shove’s wife at the time of the murders, testified that Shove was violent with her “off and on” during their marriage. Shove once punched R.H. in the nose, causing it to bleed. On another occasion, Shove pushed her up against a wall and dragged her by the hair. Shove choked R.H., sometimes lifting her off the ground against a wall or holding her down on the floor. Shove also burned R.H. with a cigarette several times on her vagina. As provided in further detail post in parts IV.B. and IV.C., the prosecution presented victim impact evidence through several family members of the victims: the Southers’ daughters; one of their granddaughters; Elizabeth’s sister; and Elizabeth’s brother-in-law. The witnesses testified to how close they were with the Southers, the many good qualities that the Southers possessed, and how their murders devastated the family. 2. Defense Case The defense presented two witnesses in its case in mitigation: Shove’s wife at the time of trial, M.A., and M.A.’s 24-year-old son, J.T. M.A. met Shove at the end of 2001 or beginning of 2002. At their first meeting, Shove told M.A. that he had been married 19  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. four times but that he loved all his wives and still helped if they needed anything. M.A. had two sons from a prior relationship, and Shove was the first man M.A. dated whom she introduced to her sons. M.A. and J.T. were both aware that Shove frequently used the alias “Tony Bonanno” and referred to him as such. J.T. testified that Shove “was more of a father than my real dad, even in the short time I got to know him.” M.A. testified that Shove is a “wonderful” and “excellent” man with a “good heart” who was beloved by senior citizens at the Elks Lodge and related a time when he helped an elderly man who had fallen. With J.T.’s blessing, Shove married M.A. in 2004. M.A. denied any abuse or threats during their relationship and testified that Shove always treated her with respect. J.T. confirmed that Shove treated his mother with respect, denied any abusive conduct, and stated that his mother always told him how great Shove treated her and how happy she was. Shove did not tell M.A. about any abuse in his prior marriages but told her that he had been incarcerated for something he did not do. J.T. did not believe Shove to be capable of domestic violence or murder and was unaware of Shove’s criminal history. M.A. frequently visited Shove in jail after his arrest. Despite Shove’s convictions, M.A. and J.T. wanted to maintain a relationship with Shove. II. PRETRIAL ISSUES A. Denial of Motion to Suppress Computer Evidence Before trial, Shove unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized from the search of his home on the ground that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search his residence. Shove now renews the contention. We find no error in the admission of the evidence. 20  PEOPLE v. SHOVE Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 1. Background On April 23, 2002, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Detective Linda Muse signed an affidavit in support of a warrant to search Shove’s home for, among other items, personal computers and the data stored therein. A magistrate approved the warrant the same day. In the affidavit, Detective Muse detailed the Southers’ murders and the previous break-in at their home, the Cal Aero safe burglary, and the extortion letters and telephone calls. The affidavit described multiple reasons why investigators believed both Vann and Shove were involved in the burglary. Vann was aware that the office where the safe was located did not have an alarm system, he was the only Cal Aero employee who was aware of the safe’s contents, and he believed the safe contained up to $300,000. The affidavit also detailed Vann’s strange behavior, which Cal Aero employees observed before and after the burglary. As to Shove, the affidavit described Shove’s efforts to purchase Cal Aero through the Souther family attorney after the murders, whose telephone number Shove had obtained from Vann, Shove’s frequent communications with Vann, and his company’s access to burglary tools. The affidavit described the three computer-generated extortion letters and observed that the first letter was accompanied by a page from Elizabeth’s will, which had been stolen from the safe. The affidavit observed that another letter demanded $300,000 from Kenneth to keep supposedly incriminating information about the murders from the police and that a perso