People of Territory of Guam v. Atoigue, 74-2445
| Decision Date | 23 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-2445,74-2445 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Mafnas ATOIGUE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Janet H. Weeks, Agana, Guam (argued), of Trapp, Gayle, Teker, Weeks & Friedman, agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant.
John D. Fuchs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Agana, Guam (argued), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KOELSCH and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and ZIRPOLI, 1 District Judge.
On January 2, 1974, Donald Minot, the manager of the Seven-Up Bottling Company plant at Maite, Guam, was found dead in his office. He had been stabbed six times. Appellant in this case was charged, in a two-count indictment, with Minot's murder, in violation of sections 189 and 190 of the Penal Code of Guam, and with robbery in violation of sections 211, 212 and 213 of the Penal Code of Guam. After a trial at which he was ably represented by counsel who also represents him in this appeal, he was convicted on both counts and sentenced to life imprisonment on the first count and five years in prison on the second. He appeals on two grounds, neither of which is meritorious.
First, appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for murder in the first degree. He does not object to the instructions on lesser offenses, and there is no question that he did stab Minot to death, although there is some doubt as to what he used to commit the crime since the murder weapon has never been found. Thus, the only contention he makes is that the evidence does not support the jury's finding that the killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated, as required by section 189 of the Penal Code.
On appeal from a jury verdict of guilty, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; the only issue here is whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction for first degree murder. See People v. Marquez, 109 Cal.App.2d 447, 449, 240 P.2d 1019 (1952). It is, of course, impermissible to infer the requisite premeditation from the mere fact of killing, and the burden is on the prosecution to establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Dealing with a statute with the same wording as the statute in this case, the Supreme Court of California observed that:
Given the presumption that an unjustified killing of a human being constitutes murder of the second, rather than of the first, degree, and the clear legislative intention to differentiate between first and second degree murder, we must determine in any case of circumstantial evidence whether the proof is such as will furnish a reasonable foundation for an inference of premeditation and deliberation or whether it 'leaves only to conjecture and surmise the conclusion that defendant either arrived at or carried out the intention to kill as the result of a concurrence of deliberation and premeditation.'
People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15, 25, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942 (1968). There, the court noted that there were three categories of circumstantial evidence that would justify upholding a conviction for first degree murder: (1) facts indicating 'planning activity,' conduct of the defendant prior to the actual killing, indicating that he intended the fatal result; (2) facts concerning the defendant's prior relationship with the victim that would permit a jury to infer a motive based upon 'pre-existing reflection' rather than 'mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed'; (3) facts about the manner of the killing that in and of themselves imply that it was done according to a 'preconceived design.' Id. at 26-27, 73 Cal.Rptr. at 557, 447 P.2d at 949. The focus of this analysis is on whether there is a reasonable foundation in the facts, viewed most favorably for the prosecution, to support the conclusion that the killing was the product of advance contemplation rather than impulse.
The prosecution's evidence at trial was sufficient to permit the jury to find facts that reasonably support the inference of premeditation. The most important evidence was the testimony of Jesse Castro, a friend of appellant. He testified that he and appellant went to the Bottling Company offices two days before the killing, at appellant's behest, to commit a robbery. R.T. 236-37. Castro testified that appellant told him that he would kill the man he had worked for at the Bottling Company (Minot, by reasonable inference) to avoid identification as the burglar. R.T. 237-38. When they arrived, however, appellant looked into the office and started to leave, declaring his intention 'to come back later on.' R.T. 239. Thereafter, Castro withdrew from the plan because 'I told him I knew another plan we won't have to kill.' Id. This testimony alone was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the prosecution had proved facts in both the first and second categories delineated by the California court because it supports the conclusion that there was a plan directed towards killing Minot and that there was a motive for that killing, concealment of appellant's identity.
Appellant argues that his failure to carry out his plan at the time he went to the Bottling Company with Castro was an abandonment and that therefore Castro's testimony does not support a finding of premeditation. But Castro testified only that appellant had decided not to commit the crime immediately but to 'come back later on'; the jury could have concluded that he did not abandon the plan but carried it out on January 2, which was, as appellee points out, the very next business day. Hence, Castro's testimony, standing alone, could support the conviction in this case.
There was other evidence that tended to support the jury's conclusion that the crime was premeditated. Dr. Park, the physician who performed the autopsy on Minot, testified that the wounds were inflicted by a long double-edged implement like a bayonet. R.T. 155-56. Rudolfo Dungan, with whom appellant had lived for several days prior to the killing, testified that he had possessed a bayonet which had disappeared at about the time appellant lift for the Bottling Company to commit the crime. R.T. 231. Both he and Mrs. Josephine Guerrero testified that appellant took with him, when he departed, an object wrapped in clothing that was about twelve inches long and four inches in diameter. R.T. 218-19; 226. Thus, the jury had a reasonable basis for concluding that appellant had taken the murder weapon with him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Free
...relationship to the victim, the defendant's carrying of the murder weapon to the scene, and the manner of the killing. Guam v. Atoigue, 508 F.2d 680, 681-82 (9th Cir.1974). From our review of the evidence, we conclude that a rational juror, considering the evidence produced at trial as a wh......