People v. Aikin

Decision Date20 August 1971
Docket NumberCr. 17616
Citation97 Cal.Rptr. 251,19 Cal.App.3d 685
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Forrest Dillard AIKIN, Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

REPPY, Associate Justice.

Charged by an information with murder (Pen.Code, § 187), defendant was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. He was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment.

THE FACTS AND EVIDENTIAL PROCESS

The victim, Gloria Cramer (hereinafter, Gloria), and defendant, a merchant seaman, had carried on a sporadic and stormy romantic association for a number of months. Defendant was divorced. Gloria was married but lived with her husband only part time. She stayed with defendant over fairly extended periods in motel units which he rented while he was ashore. Both were heavy drinkers of intoxicating liquors; Gloria combined drinking with pill taking (barbiturates) quite regularly. Her husband considered her addicted to intoxicating liquors and drugs. She sometimes struck him when she was under their influence. Defendant testified that he combined pills and liquor on two occasions, at the time of the homicide and at the time of a fight hereinafter mentioned.

Strong feelings of love and hate alternately prevailed between defendant and Gloria, the latter often leading to the exchange of verbal insults and occasionally to combative physical encounters. One occurrence came to the attention of authorities about nine months prior to the homicide. As a result of it, Gloria was hospitalized and defendant was checked at the hospital and then jailed for a time. Charges were dismissed. Several more episodes of conflict, one happening a few days before the homicide, were overheard by occupants of adjacent rooms at the motel in Long Beach then occupied by defendant and Gloria.

The circumstantial evidence and pretrial and intrial statements of defendant indicate that Gloria died on the night of February 4, 1969, (a Tuesday), or early on the morning of the 5th. Gloria was seen by her husband in their own apartment on January 30, 1969. Gloria and her mother, who lived in Santa Maria, were very close, and the mother could recognize changes in the emotions of her daughter.

In December 1968 Gloria called her mother from a public telephone in the middle of the night, very excited, very Several days later Gloria's mother placed a person-to-person call to her at the Long Beach motel. 2 Defendant answered. The mother overheard his talk with the operator. He seemed very nervous and told the operator that Gloria was not there, was at a lady friend's, and that he could not tell when she would be back. This could have been on Wednesday, February 5, 1969.

                disturbed, very frightended.  She said that defendant was in a highly emotional state; that she thought he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or both, and she said that [19 Cal.App.3d 689] she was very fearful of her life. 1  On January 28, 1969, calling collect from her own apartment, Gloria had an hour and a quarter telephone conversation with her mother.  Gloria seemed all right at that time.  On January 31, 1969, Gloria called her mother collect from the Long Beach motel.  She seemed disturbed at that time.  She spoke of flying home in the next day or so.  She appeared to be a little frightened.  When her mother entered into a discussion about 'where she was at' and getting away from that situation, Gloria spoke guardedly, responding only with 'yeses' as though afraid to talk on the telephone.  She appeared to be fearful of somebody close to the telephone, very afraid.  She was disturbed
                

On Wednesday, February 12, the motel manager saw defendant through his (defendant's) motel room door, which was open. He was standing near it and watching television. On Thursday, February 13, defendant called the manager (apparently by telephone) and told her that he was leaving for San Francisco, saying that if his wife should call, to tell her that he would be back Sunday evening and that he would pay his rent then. Defendant did not contact the manager on Sunday. On Tuesday, the 18th of February, the manager rang and knocked at defendant's door. Getting no response, she unlocked it and called in, but an intense odor made her realize that something was wrong. The police were called, and the body was found. It was on the bed in a decomposed and discolored (darkened) condition. There were heavy bloodstains with hair mixed therein on the sheet. There was blood on the telephone receiver, and there were droplets of blood on the telephone cord, on the carpet and in the kitchen-bar area. There were smears of blood on a coffee table. There were traces of spattered blood on the jamb of the door leading from the main room, on the edge of the bathroom, and in the toilet and sink. A pair of men's shorts and a shirt, bloodstained, were found in a closet; the blood was not typed. Only the blood on the bedding, telephone and coffee table could be tested. These samples turned out to be type 'A' which Gloria had. Defendant had type 'O' blood. A number of notes which defendant had written giving his reactions and attempting to account for the circumstances were found. They were received in evidence. 3

An autopsy disclosed that death was due to an acute subdural hematoma, traumatic, on the left side of the head. There was a skull fracture at the base of the brain. The injuries were said to be due to two forceful blows (not possibly involved in a fall) by something that had a blunt or smooth surface, which could have been a hand. It could be told by subtissue examination that there were bruises of recent origin on the thighs. No bruises or signs of beating about the face were found, but the decomposition and discoloration of the skin could have made such signs indistinct. A toxicologist found a barbiturate level of 2.3 milligrams percent of shortacting barbiturates in Gloria's liver. This was significant An indication of what happened in the motel room on the night of February 4th or in the early morning hours of the 5th, and thereafter, was provided by police testimony detailing a pretrial statement made by defendant to them, by the trial testimony of defendant himself, and by some of the notes that he wrote. Defendant and Gloria ordered and had delivered from a pharmacy 60 seconal tablets, and defendant had on hand a quart of beer and a fifth of Vodka. They had a hamburger dinner on the evening of the 4th. Defendant drank beer. Gloria, Vodka. They both took pills.

but, for a confirmed user of barbiturates, the level was somewhat lower than median.

Defendant claimed that he had no memory of anything else that happened after dinner until he awakened on the bed on the morning of the 5th. He claimed he was in his clothes. When he stood up he saw Gloria lying on the floor, nude. He claimed that he thought she was asleep and that he let her lie there about an hour. He then checked her for breathing, did not think she was, and gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. About an hour after that he placed her on the bed and tried resuscitation again. He claims that he remained with the body until he left on February 13th; that he drank intoxicating liquor and took a number of the remaining pills, describing one episode in such a way as to indicate a possible gesture at suicide. Defendant did not call a doctor or the police. He testified that he recalled wiping up the floor and wiping Gloria's face.

When defendant left the motel, he went first to San Diego, then to Las Vegas, then back to the Los Angeles area, then to San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. In Seattle he worked some for a tugboat company because he was low on money. He then returned to the Los Angeles area and took steps to sign out on a ship. However, he did not complete this move because he saw his name on a list kept at the employment center 4 for men wanted for criminal offenses. He went back to San Diego and then returned to Wilmington where he registered at the Don Hotel, first under his middle name and then under his regular surname. The police learned he was there. After knocking on the door of his second-story room and announcing their presence and hearing no response, they unlocked the door with a passkey; but they were able to open it only partly because it was restrained with a night chain. Hearing shuffling noises, they broke the chain, entered and found defendant in the middle of the room. A window opposite him was open with the lower drapes hanging outside. Apparently a notebook containing more written thoughts of defendant was found. 5

At trial, a Mrs. Jeanne Lair, who managed the Islander Motel in the summer of 1968, testified 6 that (seemingly on an occasion within that period) she had overheard defendant and Gloria fighting; that she could hear slapping and foul language, breaking glass, the sound of striking and moaning; that she also had heard the sound of a body falling against the wall and defendant telling Gloria to get up off the floor. Mrs. Lair further testified that on many occasions she had stopped fights; that defendant and Gloria however would get together after their arguments.

A Mrs. Ocite Broussard was called during the presentation of the defense. She lived at Shangri Lodge where defendant and Gloria had sojourned part of the time together in the summer of 1969. After eliciting from her that she had seen Gloria under the influence of alcohol many times, defense counsel asked her if she had ever seen defendant with bruises on his face. The deputy district attorney interposed an objection on the ground of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • People v. Heffington
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1973
    ...... In such cases the courts have utilized their power to modify the judgment to reflect the lesser offense, giving the prosecution an election between modification and a new trial. (People v. Garcia, 27 Cal.App.3d 639, 647--648, 104 Cal.Rptr. 69; People v. Aikin, 19 Cal.App.3d 685, 706, 97 Cal.Rptr. 251; People v. Shavers, 269 Cal.App.2d 886, 889--890, 75 Cal.Rptr. 334.) There is no established rule and we discern no reason why the same measuring process should not occur where the error is failure to instruct on a lesser included offense. . ......
  • People v. Kozel
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 1982
    ...... We have not found authority which requires it to have been given sua sponte and failure to give it is not error. The jurors were instructed by CALJIC No. 17.50 that [133 Cal.App.3d 529] "[i]n order to return a verdict, all twelve jurors must agree to the decision". People v. Aikin (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 685, at 703, fn. 13, 97 Cal.Rptr. 251 [disapproved on another point in People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514, 119 Cal.Rptr. 225, 531 P.2d 793] describes failure to give CALJIC No. 8.74 as a minor deficiency. It is not a deficiency in the present case at all, because the ......
  • People v. Anderson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 4, 2011
    ...... at p. 555.)         The trial court has a sua sponte duty to give a Dewberry instruction when a defendant is charged with greater and lesser included offenses. ( People v. Aikin (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 685, 704, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514; People v. Barajas (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 787, 793.) The omission of a Dewberry instruction can be cured by a reading of other relevant jury instructions. ( People v. Crone (1997) 54 ......
  • People v. Wickersham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 2, 1982
    ......Watts (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 80, 85-86, fn. 2, 130 Cal.Rptr. 601; People v. Williams (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 34, 58, 99 Cal.Rptr. 103 ["Obviously, defense counsel's request and agreement were not tactical ploys, the engagement in which would invoke the doctrine of invited error."]; People v. Aikin (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 685, 702, 97 Cal.Rptr. 251.) Those cases in which invited[32 Cal.3d 333] error has been found are reported in Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d at page 318, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153 and include just such explicit statements. .         Under the Graham rule, counsel ......
  • 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