People v. Arcega

Decision Date30 September 1982
Docket NumberCr. 21423
Citation651 P.2d 338,186 Cal.Rptr. 94,32 Cal.3d 504
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 651 P.2d 338 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vincent M. ARCEGA, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Roderick P. Bushnell, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Bushnell, Caplan, Fielding & Rudy, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Pounders and Robert F. Katz, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BIRD, Chief Justice.

This is an automatic appeal from a judgment imposing a penalty of death. (See Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) 1

Appellant, Vincent M. Arcega, Jr., was accused of the first degree murders of Marilyn Milner and Leila Blessing, also known as Julie Blessing. (§§ 187, 189.) A special circumstance was alleged as to each count that appellant was personally present during the commission of the act or acts causing the death, had physically aided or committed such act or acts with intent to cause death, and had in this case been convicted of first degree murder and an additional count of murder in the first or second degree. (Former § 190.2, subd. (c)(5).)

In January 1979, appellant was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state hospital. In August 1979, he was returned as competent. A jury trial in December resulted in a verdict that appellant was competent. In the competency proceedings, there were indications that appellant had been feigning mental illness to avoid trial. He failed to respond to questions when called as a witness at the competency trial and kept his head buried in his arms throughout both the competency trial and the trial at which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

At the trial on guilt or innocence, appellant did not deny responsibility for the killings. The defense sought to establish that the killings were not first degree murders since appellant did not premeditate or deliberate, within the meaning of section 189. The defense also relied on appellant's extrajudicial claims of intoxication and on certain testimony regarding a head injury to present a diminished capacity defense to the jury. However, no expert opinion evidence was introduced to establish that the claimed intoxication and/or head injury would have caused diminished capacity. Finally, the defense argued heat of passion in an attempt to reduce the offense to manslaughter. The jury apparently rejected the defense contentions and returned verdicts of guilty as charged.

Since appellant had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the next phase of the trial addressed the question whether he was legally insane at the time of the commission of the killings. No additional evidence was introduced at this phase. The jury found appellant sane.

Other than a stipulation as to appellant's age, no further evidence was admitted at the penalty phase of trial. Upon the completion of argument, the jury retired and subsequently returned with its judgment imposing death.

I.

At the time of the killings, appellant was living at the home of one of the victims, Marilyn Milner. Appellant, 27 years old and with no significant prior criminal record, was employed as a clerk-typist at a state mental hospital. He had been born in the Philippines, entered the United States with his parents in November 1970, and was subsequently naturalized as a citizen.

Appellant had first encountered Milner in 1975 when she solicited him for an act of prostitution. Appellant purchased Milner's services on numerous occasions over an extended period of time.

In March 1978, Milner found herself in bad financial shape. Appellant contacted her and stated that he would like to move in with her. Milner agreed. According to Milner's mother, Milner told appellant that he would have his own room and was not to enter hers. As long as he obeyed the rules, he could live in her apartment. Appellant moved in and began paying some of the bills.

Around the same time that appellant moved in, Milner began dating Enrique Contreras. On occasion, she spent the night at his house. Contreras testified he spoke with Milner on the telephone at approximately 11:30 p.m. on June 1, 1978, the night of the killings. According to Milner's mother, Milner had told appellant to move out by this date. She was planning to visit her father in Seattle in the event appellant had not yet done so. Milner's father also testified that his daughter was planning to visit him at that time.

Sometime before June 1, Milner had met and befriended Leila Faye Barkley Blessing, also known as Julie Blessing. Blessing was a 15-year-old runaway from New Jersey. Milner permitted her to live in the apartment, sleeping on the living room couch.

Lorene Jacobsen, a friend of Milner, testified that she spoke to Milner on the phone the night of June 1. The conversation lasted several hours, terminating about 1 a. m. on June 2. Before they hung up, the two women decided that whichever one awoke first the next morning would call the other. Jacobsen testified that she tried calling the next morning but received no answer.

On the afternoon of June 2, Milner's brother, Steve Henriksen, went to the apartment. His knock on the door was unanswered, so he let himself in with his own key. He noticed that things had been misplaced, although his sister was normally a neat housekeeper. He opened the door to the bedroom and went in. Upon entering, he saw his sister lying on the bed with a pillow close to her head. He touched her to see if she was alive; she felt cold.

Henriksen saw a telephone lying unplugged on the floor of the bedroom. He took it into the living room in order to plug it in and call the police. He had dialed the operator when he noticed Blessing's body on the couch. At that point, he became hysterical and ran out of the house screaming.

Long Beach Police Officer Dennis Bracken testified that he received a call at 4:50 p m. on June 2 to investigate a possible murder at the address of Milner's apartment. Upon arrival, he found Henriksen outside in an hysterical condition. Bracken noticed that the apartment's shades were down and the curtains drawn.

Inside the living room, Officer Bracken found Blessing's body. She was in a kneeling position with her head on the couch. A blanket partially covered her legs. There was a substantial amount of blood on her body and the couch. There was also blood on the nearby wall. Blessing was pronounced dead at the scene.

The officer then proceeded to Milner's bedroom. She was lying on her bed with blood over her body and a pillow over her face. She was wearing a T-shirt or nightgown which was pulled up over her breasts, but no other clothing. Her legs were spread and her arms were folded. Bracken noticed stab wounds and what appeared to be strangulation marks on her throat. Milner was also pronounced dead. Next to the bed was a knife with blood on it. At the foot of the bed were four empty sixteen-ounce cans of beer and a blood-stained beer carton.

When Blessing's body was lifted for the coroner to remove, a metal object fell from her skull. Bracken subsequently found a skillet in the oven with a piece missing. Hair and blood were in the kitchen sink. There were numerous bloodstains. There was also blood on the doorbell, which had been disconnected. A second blood-stained beer carton was found in the kitchen.

In the bathroom, Bracken found more bloodstains and a number of electrical cords. One cord had been wrapped around the faucet, another was hanging down from the door. On the mirror, he saw the words "I love you, Marilyn" written in blood. On the wall, also written in blood, were the words, "I love you, Marilyn, P. E." 2

Bracken noticed two telephones in the apartment. One was in the living room and was plugged into the wall. The other was near the door to the bathroom, upside down and lacking any wires.

Dr. Eugene Carpenter performed the autopsies. He testified that the causes of Milner's death were brain damage, loss of blood, and/or suffocation. There were five or six stab wounds to the left back. In addition, Milner suffered multiple lacerations of the scalp caused by "[c]onsiderable" force. The lacerations could have been caused by the iron skillet. Milner may have died from suffocation, either from accumulated blood or from pressure exerted on the pillow over her face. Dr. Carpenter estimated that she had lived, in a coma, 30 minutes to several hours after the injuries.

Blessing's death was due to brain damage resulting from multiple blunt force injuries. She had suffered instant death as a result of "damage to the medulla." There were wounds on the arm and shoulder indicating an attempt to avoid the blows to her head. She had received 10 to 12 blows in all.

Donald McLaury, a disabled neighbor who spent much of his time watching the neighborhood from his front window, testified that it was unusual for the curtains to be drawn and the shades down in Milner's apartment. Even at night, he stated, they were always up. However, Steve Henriksen testified that he would not consider it unusual for the shades to be closed.

Manhattan Beach Police Officer Robert Bey testified that he and his partner, Terry Charles, were on patrol near the ocean pier about 3 a. m. on June 3. They were approached by someone who said a person was drowning near the end of the pier. They went to the end of the pier and saw a man floating on his back in the water and calling for help. The officers were unable to rescue the man and soon lost sight of him. Approximately 30 minutes later, they found a man lying on the sand near the edge of the water. There were purplish marks on his neck and both wrists. From the documents in the man's pocket, they identified him as appellant. He was alive and appeared to be "coherent but disoriented." Appellant did not know where he was or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
142 cases
  • Michael W. v. Superior Court of Orange County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 1983
    ...as it is accorded the protection of a "judicially declared immunity." (Id., at p. 469, 122 Cal.Rptr. 61.) People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 186 Cal.Rptr. 94, 651 P.2d 338, approved Tarantino and emphasized the basis for the rule was the constitutional privilege against self-incriminati......
  • People v. Heishman
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1988
    ... ... (See People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 526-528, 186 Cal.Rptr. 94, 651 P.2d 338. On prejudice, see People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 532, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580.) ...         [753 P.2d 646] In his supplemental brief, defendant argues that under People v. Coleman (1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 82-86, ... ...
  • People v. Ruiz
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1988
    ...P.2d 243; see People v. Coleman (1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 81-86, and fn. 4, 211 Cal.Rptr. 102, 695 P.2d 189; People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 526-527, 186 Cal.Rptr. 94, 651 P.2d 338; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 23-24, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468; People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2......
  • People v. Bloyd
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1987
    ...must have had a preconceived design. (Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d p. 27, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942; People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 518-519, 186 Cal.Rptr. 94, 651 P.2d 338.) The People concede that the evidence of planning was ambiguous. They rely on defendant's admission that he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...in a mental-competency examination under Pen. C. §1369. People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 802-03; People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 522. Under this judicially created immunity, the prosecution is prohibited from using any statement made by the defendant during the competency e......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal. 3d 749, 150 Cal. Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220, 3 A.L.R.4th 1171 (1978)—Ch. 3-A, §4.3.1 People v. Arcega, 32 Cal. 3d 504, 186 Cal. Rptr. 94, 651 P.2d 338 (1982)—Ch. 4-C, §3.2.2(1)(d)[2][c] People v. Arceo, 195 Cal. App. 4th 556, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436 (2d Dist. 2011)—Ch......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT