Frazier v. Superior Court

• Citation: 486 P.2d 694,95 Cal.Rptr. 798,5 Cal.3d 287
• Decision Date: 07 July 1971
• Docket Number: S.F. 22812
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: , 486 P.2d 694 John Linley FRAZIER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent, The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Page 798

95 Cal.Rptr. 798

5 Cal.3d 287, 486 P.2d 694

John Linley FRAZIER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent, The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 22812.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

July 7, 1971.

Britton & Jackson and James A. Jackson, Santa Cruz, for petitioner.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, John T. Murphy and Karl J. Uebel, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

Defendant John Linley Frazier, under indictment in Santa Cruz County on five counts of murder (Pen.Code, § 187), moved for a change of venue on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in that county. (Pen.Code, § 1033.) The motion was denied, and he seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent court to grant the relief sought. ¹ The remedy is appropriate. (Maine v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 375, 378--381, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372.)

On October 19, 1970, Dr. Victor Ohta, a prominent Santa Cruz eye surgeon, his wife, their two sons aged 11 and 12 years, and Dr. Ohta's secretary were found murdered at the Ohtas' hilltop mansion outside Soquel. Dr. Ohta had been shot once in the chest and twice in the back, while each of the other four victims had been killed by a single bullet in the back of the head. All five had been bound with scarves and thrown into the family swimming pool. Several fires had been set in the Ohtas' house, apparently in an effort to burn it down.

The residents of the Santa Cruz area understandably experienced a two-fold reaction of grief and fear after this mass killing. Dr. Ohta had lived and practiced in Santa Cruz for a decade, and was a founder of one of the local hospitals. Testimonials to the deep sense of loss caused by his murder and that of his wife and sons filled the newspapers, and several reward funds were set up for the apprehension and conviction of those responsible. Well over a thousand people attended the Ohta funeral a few days later, described as 'certainly one of the largest in county history,' and 300 more attended the funeral of Dr. Ohta's secretary. At the same time, fears were expressed in the press that the killers might strike again, and both gun sales and requests for guard dogs increased substantially. Reflecting these moods of the citizenry, the county board of supervisors conditionally created its own reward fund and declared that 'the entire community of Santa Cruz County is shocked by the appalling execution-type killings recently occurring in this area.'

Public suspicion quickly began to focus on the 'hippie' element in the community. According to the newspapers there was a widespread distrust and dislike of hippies among older residents, who objected to their appearance and life style and to the 'communes' that had been set up in the rural areas. Indeed, at the meeting of the county board of supervisors mentioned above a number of citizens called for laws specifically aimed at hippies, and the board chairman stated, 'I know some people will scream about their rights getting stepped on but we are going to have to start looking at the transient element, and those people who come here with no visible way of making a living.' He also characterized the murders as of 'the same magnitude as the Sharon Tate slayings,' referring to the multiple crimes for which Charles Manson and his hippie 'family' were then on trial in Los Angeles. Another supervisor echoed the chairman's views, and urged the board to seek 'laws against itinerants.'

The community's belief that hippies were responsible in this case was reinforced by the bizarre nature of these 'execution-type killings' and the apparent lack of any rational motive. ² Thus a local newspaper editorialized on October 21 that 'The most terrifying thing about this crime and others of recent record is its cold impersonality. It is at least partly understandable, though not justifiable, when a human life is taken in the course of a personal quarrel or an armed robbery. It is simply frightening to realize that human lives are taken, right here in our own small county, apparently for no reason by utter strangers whose motives were neither personal anger nor monetary gain.

'We come to the thought that to the mental imbalance already afflicting a certain part of the population are added two dangerous new factors--the cult of drug abuse and a disregard for others' rights including the right to live.

'No evidence yet points to the criminals' identity, let alone their attitudes or use of drugs. But it certainly is clear that this was the work of people gone utterly mad, and that none of us is safe from them or others like them.'

Later that same day, however, evidence of the kind mentioned in the editorial was made public. When they arrived on the murder scene on October 19 law enforcement authorities had discovered a strange note left on the windshield of Dr. Ohta's car. It declared that 'World War 3' has begun, and warned that 'From this day forward' anyone who 'misuses the natural environment' will 'suffer the penalty of death by the people of the free universe,' and that 'materialism must die or mankind will.' The note was signed, 'Knight of Wands, Knight of Cups, Night (sic) of Pentacle and Knight of Swords.' The latter are characters from the tarot deck, an ancient form of playing cards used in fortune-telling. Interest in tarot cards has been revived in recent years by hippies and others similarly inclined to occultism and psychic experiences.

The sheriff withheld the contents of the note for two days while his investigation proceeded, but on October 21 he finally released it in the hope its dissemination would bring public assistance in solving the case. ³ The release of the note had the desired effect, but it also further divided the community. As one newspaper graphically put it, 'Naked fear stalks the normally placid countryside of Santa Cruz County. The Soquel massacre, steeped in mysticism and stamped with a clear warning that other similar deaths might follow, has chilled the marrow of the established community. Hippie-types, for their part, fear indiscriminate vigilante retaliation against innocent members of their culture.' Demands for such retaliation led the Mayor of Santa Cruz to issue an appeal asking the public to remain calm.

Meanwhile, acquaintances of defendant Frazier read the murder note and went to the police. Information provided by them and by defendant's estranged wife furnished grounds for obtaining an arrest warrant on October 22. As reported in the newspapers, the affidavit for the warrant recited inter alia that defendant had been living in a shack not far from the Ohtas' home for several months; that he stayed at his wife's house on the night of October 17, and when he went out the next morning he carried a loaded pistol, binoculars, and a backpack but left his wallet and driver's license, saying 'I won't be needing these any more'; that he also left behind a book on tarot cards; and that when an acquaintance and defendant were walking in the Soquel hills six weeks earlier they came to the Ohtas' home, and defendant said he had been inside it and people who lived as the Ohtas did were 'materialistic' and 'should be snuffed.' Another edition of the paper reported that 'witnesses have stated that Frazier used to spy on the Ohta home from a clump of redwoods on the hillside above their home and that he had told them he was going to do away with the family.'

At dawn on October 23 defendant was arrested in his shack. Newspaper photographs of the event showed him to have long hair and a beard. Although he had lived in Santa Cruz for a number of years, in the months preceding the murders he had radically changed. His acquaintances reported that he 'dropped out and entered the hippie style of life,' and 'was a loner who did not widely advertise his feelings. He was not known to many people. * * *'

On October 28 the Santa Cruz grand jury indicted defendant on five counts of murder. In a commendable effort to minimize the possibility of prejudice the trial court simultaneously issued an 'Order re Publicity,' prohibiting any attorney, court attache, law enforcement official, or witness from thereafter releasing any extrajudicial statement by defendant or any evidence in the case and from publicly commenting on any such evidence or on prior or prospective testimony. ⁴

Finally, the fiscal impact of the Frazier case--its actual and potential drain on the Santa Cruz County coffers--has since been brought to the public's attention. Thus in reporting on a substantial budget overrun in the sheriff's office and the negative reaction of the county board of supervisors, the newspapers stated that a major portion of the deficit was caused by the expenses of investigating the Ohta murders and the extraordinary security precautions that have surrounded Frazier's custody from the day of his arrest. And in editorializing on the high cost to the public of such trials as those of Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson, and Angela Davis, the principal local newspaper told its readers that 'Santa Cruz County may find itself in a similar bind with the upcoming John Linley Frazier trial. Frazier, accused of murdering five people, has pleaded innocent. Local governmental experts believe the trial, which is expected to be sensational in nature, will cost this tiny county $25,000 and if Frazier's attorney demands a change of venue the figure could be doubled.

'Should the trial cost $50,000 it will be two cents on the tax dollar that will be eaten up.'

On this record the case at bar is governed by our decisions in Maine v. Superior Court (1968) supra, 68 Cal.2d 375, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372; Fain v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 46, 84 Cal.Rptr. 135, 465 P.2d 23, and People v. Tidwell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 62, 89 Cal.Rptr. 44, 473 P.2d 748. We do not doubt the sincerity of the witnesses who...