People v. Talbot

Decision Date03 June 1966
Docket NumberCr. 9428
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 414 P.2d 633 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dorman Fred TALBOT, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. In Bank

Patrick J. Sampson, Claremont, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment, after trial before a jury, on verdicts finding defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and imposing the death penalty.

Facts: On March 13, 1965, about 6:30 a.m., the mutilated body of Michael Dean Bartholomew was discovered in a rocky beach area below State Highway 1, several miles south of Oxnard, by Sergeant Maurice Mellencamp.

About 9 a.m. Sergeant Wyneken went to defendant's residence, 5305 Beachcomber, Oxnard Shores, Oxnard. Parked across the street from 5311 Beachcomber were two automobiles, a green 1950 Chevrolet convertible and a white 1960 Rambler. Two areas of the Chevrolet appeared to have blood on them.

Gerald K. Ridge, M.D., who performed an autopsy on the deceased, testified that on the head he found wounds which had resulted primarily from the application of a considerable amount of blunt force; that the left ear was apparently cut off; that there were three stab wounds in the neck; that in his opinion the redness on the undershirt was the result of soaking up a very large amount of blood from the neck wounds; that one of the neck wounds damaged the vascular system; that a hemorrhage resulted therefrom and from the joining with this wound of another wound; that the hemorrhage was the major cause of death; that the skull was also fractured; and that there were five stab wounds, from six to eight inches deep, on the left chest, penetrating between the ribs into the left lung and in one instance nicking the aorta.

On the Monday afternoon before Bartholomew's death, defendant, Patricia Lucas, and Barbara Randall were in Denny's Restaurant. Defendant spoke of 'rolling' Bartholomew, and said he planned to divide the money between himself and Albert Randall, Barbara's husband. Prior to this occasion there had been talk of Bartholomew's forthcoming release from the service and defendant's having learned that Bartholomew would be receiving some money.

The next day there was another conversation among defendant, Patricia Lucas, and Barbara Randall at Denny's Restaurant. Defendant said he was going to obtain another car, dress up in a suit, and follow Bartholomew until the best possible time to 'roll' him. Defendant said that if he was recognized, he would have to gouge out Bartholomew's eyes. Patricia asked if that was not rather cruel, and defendant replied that it was, but that he would have to do it to keep Bartholomew from recognizing him.

That evening while they were again at Denny's, and in the presence of Hap Gately, defendant said that he was going to 'roll' Bartholomew and that the money would be divided between Albert Randall and himself. Gately became somewhat angry and asked if he was not involved in it. Defendant replied that he himself was going to do it, that Gately was not involved, and that the money would be divided between himself and Randall.

About 1:30 or 2 p.m. Thursday, March 11, 1965, the day Bartholomew was to be mustered out of the service, defendant drove to the Randalls' house in a white Rambler. At that time defendant told Randall that he (defendant) was going to 'roll' Bartholomew, saying that he did not know how Randall would like the idea but he was going to do it.

Bartholomew came by around 2 p.m. Shortly afterward, defendant drove Bartholomew and the Randalls to a grocery store and then went to pick up Patricia Lucas. He later returned for Bartholomew and the Randalls, and they all went to the Randalls' house.

After dinner, Bartholomew said he was going uptown, but did not want to take his money with him. He asked Randall to keep the money for him and handed Randall more than $200 in $20 bills before he left.

The others went to Denny's Restaurant. As they left, Barbara put a knife into her pocketbook. Defendant drove them in his Rambler and said that he was going to catch Bartholomew in a crosswalk and run him down with the car.

Barbara warned defendant that he would be recognized and arrested. He said that he knew another man, named Frank, who had a car; that he would take this car and use it in hitting Bartholomew; that he would hit Frank over the head and pour beer over his clothing and into his mouth; and that the latter would be blamed instead of defendant. A subsequent search for Frank, however, proved unsuccessful.

Defendant, Patricia, and the Randalls then proceeded to Denny's Restaurant, where they sat in a booth. Randall went to a corner of the restaurant to talk with Hap Gately and Dale Scheinert. After several minutes they all came to the booth. There Barbara heard defendant ask, 'How much?' Gately said, '$25 or $30.' Gately asked defendant when the incident would take place, and defendant indicated that night.

A little later Bartholomew stopped by, obtained $20 from Randall, and then left. The others departed, taking Patricia Lucas to the trailer court in which she lived at Camarillo. En route, Patricia asked defendant if they could possibly be married if he obtained the money. He said that if he could obtain the money, they would be married. She asked how long they would have to wait, and he said they would possibly be married the first of the week.

Defendant and the Randalls drove back to Denny's. On the way, Randall put Barbara's knife into the glove compartment of the car. Defendant said that he was going to have to obtain some money, adding that he and Patricia were going to be married because he thought she was pregnant and he wanted to save her reputation. He spoke again about 'rolling' Bartholomew.

Later Bartholomew joined them in the restaurant. They stayed until around 3 a.m. and then left in defendant's Rambler, Bartholomew sitting in the back seat. As they drove toward the Randall house, defendant gave Randall the key to the glove compartment and motioned for him to open it. Randall removed the knife and handed it to defendant, who opened the blade and placed the knife on the seat by his right leg. When they got out of the car and went into the house, defendant stuck the knife into the belt of his trousers.

Bartholomew was planning to stay at the Randalls' that night, and with bed linens supplied by Barbara he prepared a makeshift bed on some chairs in the kitchen, as he usually did when he stayed with them.

Defendant and the Randalls then left in defendant's Rambler to go to the Navy base to pick up Randall's Navy 'greens' for mustering the next morning. In the car, Randall said that the bedroom gas heater had been turned on. Later, while at a cafe across from the Navy base, Randall again mentioned that the heater had been turned on. Barbara asked if he had lighted the heater, and he said he had not. Defendant said he wondered if Cowboy (Bartholomew's nickname) had had enough. Randall replied he did not know.

They then drove back to the Randall house and entered the kitchen, observing first that the kitchen light was on. Randall went over to the chairs on which Bartholomew was sleeping and told him to get up. Bartholomew raised his head, moaned something, and lay back down.

Defendant used some foul language and then stormed out of the house. He came back in a few minutes with a wrench-type object made of steel. He tried to hand the wrench to Randall, but Randall did not take it, saying that he could not go through with it. Defendant said that if Randall would not do it, he himself would do what had to be done.

Defendant then told Randall and Barbara to stay in the bathroom a moment. They heard what sounded like the thudding of something being struck six or seven times by an object. About a minute later Randall opened the bathroom door and pushed Barbara toward the front door. Defendant was standing in the kitchen doorway.

Barbara and Randall went outside the house, and shortly afterward defendant came out with the wrench in his hand. He started to say something about Bartholomew, but then stopped and went back into the house.

Two or three minutes later defendant came out again. Looking at Randall, he said that Bartholomew was dead. Randall said that he could not dispose of the body and could not keep his end of the bargain. Defendant remarked that it looked as if he would have to do the whole job himself.

Back in the house, defendant asked Barbara to check his shirt and pants to see if there was any blood on them. When she told him that he had some blood on his shirt, he said that he hated to get rid of the shirt because it belonged to his brother and that he would have it cleaned. He then went in to take a shower.

About a quarter after six that morning, two friends of Bartholomew came by with some things Bartholomew had left in their car. Defendant told Randall not to let them come into the house, and Randall went outside to talk with them. He told them that Bartholomew had become angry the night before and had bought a car and left.

After taking a shower, defendant put back on the clothes he had been wearing, except for the white shirt. He then rolled up the towel he had used after showering and put it in the back seat of the Rambler, together with a wash cloth and the socks he had been wearing. He said they would have to be disposed of.

As defendant and the Randalls were driving from the Randalls' house, defendant remarked that he believed Randall did not think he would go through with what he had done. He stated again that he needed the money, so that he could save Patricia's reputation, as he thought she was pregnant. There was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2009
    ...theft is guilty of burglary. (§ 459.) The entry need not be a trespass to support a burglary conviction. (People v. Talbot (1966) 64 Cal.2d 691, 700 [51 Cal.Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633], overruled on other grounds in People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 540 [75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580, 4......
  • People v. Ray
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 1967
    ...that they may be raised on appeal when no objection or request for correction was made in the trial court. (People v. Talbot (1966) 64 Cal.2d 691, 711, 51 Cal.Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633; People v. Mitchell (1966) 63 Cal.2d 805, 809, 48 Cal.Rptr. 371, 409 P.2d 211; People v. Ney (1965) 238 Cal.......
  • People v. Ross
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 20, 1967
    ...on the ground of unlawful search and seizure, and he cannot raise the matter for the first time on appeal. (People v. Talbot, 64 Cal.2d 691, 709(11), 51 Cal.Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633; People v. Cockrell, 63 Cal.2d 659, 667(9), 47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d Fourth. Was defendant prejudiced by his......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 7, 1969
    ...in determining that the probative value of the picture was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. (See People v. Talbot, 64 Cal.2d 691, 706, 51 Cal.Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633.) During the selection of the jury that ultimately convicted and sentenced defendant, 12 prospective jurors were exc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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