State Supreme Court splits 5-2 for death penalty arson blaze that killed firefighters

The state Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the conviction and death penalty sentence of a man convicted of starting a fire in 2006 in Riverside County during which five firefighters were killed.

But two justices dissented on the death penalty sentence, saying they would have vacated it, arguing that a juror was improperly excluded from the panel for expressing misgivings about imposing the death penalty in the trial of Raymond Lee Oyler.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge W. Charles Morgan dismissed the juror after her responses during voir dire suggested she might favor life without possibility of parole.

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, writing for the 5-2 majority, wrote that Morgan "undertook an adequate inquiry in light of [prospective juror] E.W.'s responses; no further questioning was required." People v. Oyler, 2025 DJDAR 3622 (Cal. S. Ct., filed June 15, 2009).

But Justice Kelli M. Evans said the judge excused the juror without clarifying her position. Evans said she would have granted a new trial on the death penalty while affirming Oyler's conviction.

"It is a stretch of the imagination to suggest that E.W. understood the court's questioning to ask whether she would be able to set aside her personal views and follow the law as instructed," Evans wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Goodwin H. Liu. "A court's mere assumptions about a juror's views are not entitled to deference."

Oakland attorney Michael W. Clough, who represented Oyler, had no luck persuading any of the justices that Oyler's conviction should be reversed for starting a series of wildfires with incendiary devices in 2006, culminating in an October 2006 blaze known as the Esperanza Fire that killed firefighters trying to put it out.

Guerrero, writing for the court, affirmed the judgment for the majority.

Evans and Liu frequently have dissented in death penalty cases as well as trials involving the exclusion of jurors.

In a written form, prospective juror E.W. wrote that the death penalty is "a necessary penalty to have," adding that she thought it "should be reserved for cruel" crimes.

Morgan questioned her about whether she was "locked in," either to a penalty of death or of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, if the defendant were convicted.

"'We have to know your attitude, and everyone else's that sits on this jury, if we do get to that point. And my question to you is, are both options open to you, and real particularly, open to you if we were to get there? E.W. responded, 'No,'" Guerrero wrote.

"The trial court followed up, 'Okay. You believe that you would favor one position over the other?' E.W. answered, 'I honestly do, yes,' the opinion added.

Morgan responded, "That's all we need," and dismissed her from the jury.

Guerrero distinguished the case from the state Supreme Court's own precedent in People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, in which the justices found there had been inadequate follow-up to statements by prospective jurors. In this case, she added, there had been.

Evans, however, said the trial judge erred in failing to clarify the prospective juror's position and ask whether she could set aside her personal views.

"The sentiment that E.W. was not 'open' to both penalties and 'favored' one over the other is not 'unequivocal' in its rejection of the death penalty," Evans wrote. "True, E.W. did not elaborate when providing answers. ... Yet the substance of her answers, given the questions posed, did not foreclose consideration of the death penalty."

Clough, in an email, wrote that he believes new evidence he has obtained in recent years will prove that Oyler did not start the Esperanza fire and plans to present that evidence in habeas corpus proceedings.

Deputy Attorney General Meredith S. White could not be reached for comment. During oral arguments, she said trial court judges are accorded deference because they can assess demeanor and tone to decide whether to dismiss a juror.

"The trial court is in the best position to make it," she said, referring to a decision to remove a juror.