California v. Royal
Annotate this CaseIn May 2007, police responded to a 911 call. Something resembling the lower half of a person was in the middle of Millar Ranch Road. The victim, R.J., lay partially in the bushes. Part of his brain and skill fragments were scattered in the road by his feet. A lighter, cigarette butt, gum wrapper and saliva were found near the victim's body. An autopsy revealed R.J. died from a shotgun blast to the head, likely fired within three feet. He had methamphetamine in his system. R.J. had last been seen alive by a grocery store; cell phone records showed the last number called belonged to defendant Marlin Royal. A mutual friend introduced Royal to R.J. A patchwork of physical evidence and testimony from one of Royal's ex girlfriends was presented at trial. After a jury deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial, a second jury was empaneled and convicted Royal of first degree murder. The jury also found true that Royal personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder, and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. Royal subsequently admitted a serious felony prior as well as two prior strikes. The court sentenced Royal to prison for 100 years to life, plus five years. Royal appealed, contending: (1) the prosecution did not exercise due diligence in securing the key witness to testify during Royal's second trial (leading the prosecution to read the transcript of the witness's testimony at the second trial); (2) the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence as past recollection recorded; and (3) the trial court improperly limited the scope of the cross-examination of the prosecution's expert witness. Although the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, it concluded such error was harmless. Additionally, the Court found Royal's other claims of error without merit, and affirmed judgment and conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.