People v. Alcala, Cr. 21532

Citation36 Cal.3d 604,205 Cal.Rptr. 775,685 P.2d 1126
Decision Date23 August 1984
Docket Number23258,Cr. 21532
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties, 685 P.2d 1126 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rodney James ALCALA, Defendant and Appellant. In re Rodney James ALCALA on Habeas Corpus.

[36 Cal.3d 613] [685 P.2d 1129] George Deukmejian, Former Atty. Gen. and John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael D. Wellington, Harley D. Mayfield, Patricia D. Benke, Bruce Daniel Rosen and Louis R. Hanoian, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., San Diego, Richard D. Huffman, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., and Paul M. Morley, Deputy Dist. Atty., as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.

Keith C. Monroe, Santa Ana, under appointment by the Supreme Court, David A. Zimmerman and Monroe & Riddet, Santa Ana, for defendant and appellant and petitioner.

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Michael G. Millman and Joseph Levine, Deputy State Public Defenders, Samuel R. Gross, Palo Alto and Robert C. Vanderet, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

GRODIN, Justice.

Defendant Rodney James Alcala was convicted on one count of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187-189) with use of a deadly weapon [36 Cal.3d 614] (id., § 12022, subd. (b)) and one count of forcible kidnaping (id., § 207). (All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.) Defendant admitted a prior conviction and prison sentence for lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under 14. (§§ 288, 667 et seq.) Under the 1978 death penalty law, a special circumstance that the murder occurred in the course of a kidnaping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(ii)) was found true, and defendant was sentenced to death. This appeal is automatic. Defendant has also filed a related petition for habeas corpus.

We will conclude that the convictions and special circumstance finding must be reversed, since the admission of prior offenses constituted prejudicial error on those issues. However, we will reject defendant's contention that the double jeopardy clause bars retrial of certain allegations because the valid evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient to support them. We will also hold that defendant may be retried on all counts of the current information regardless of asserted irregularities at his preliminary hearing.

INVESTIGATION

On the afternoon of June 20, 1979, 12-year-old Robin Samsoe left the Huntington Beach apartment of her friend Bridgett Wilvert to bicycle to a ballet lesson. On July 2, William Poepke, a member of a forest service spraying crew, came upon Robin's scattered remains in a remote mountain ravine above Sierra Madre. The skull was separated from the neck, and the lower teeth were fractured in a manner consistent with a blow from a hard object. The left foot and portions of the hands were missing.

A "Kane Kut" kitchen knife was found nearby. It bore a minute drop of human blood, type unknown. A beach towel discovered in the vicinity contained "wipe" stains of type A blood. Type A blood was mixed with rocks and leaves in the area. 1 No clothing was found except for one tennis shoe which bore the name Robin. Because of the advanced state of decomposition, it was impossible to determine medically the time and cause of death, or whether Robin had been sexually molested.

The police learned that, shortly before Robin's disappearance, she and Bridgett had been accosted at the beach by a strange man. With their permission, the stranger had taken several pictures of the two girls, including a carefully posed photograph of Robin. He walked or ran away quickly when Jackye Young, an adult acquaintance of Bridgett's, approached. Young and Bridgett helped the police prepare a composite sketch of the photographer.

Page 779

Defendant's former probation officer recognized the drawing

[36 Cal.3d 615] [685 P.2d 1130] Based on defendant's record as a child molester, his known penchant for prurient photography of children, and indications that he frequented the area where Robin's body was found, the police obtained a warrant to arrest defendant and search his home and car. On July 24, defendant was arrested in his bedroom in Monterey Park, and the residential search was carried out. A receipt for a Seattle storage locker was found; the receipt was dated after Robin's death. There was a Kane Kut knife set in the house, which defendant shared with his mother, but no knife was missing from the set.

The Seattle storage locker was later searched under warrant. Police discovered cold-weather clothing and kitchenware, quantities of photographs and film, and a pair of gold-coated earrings.

GUILT TRIAL

A. People's case.

Toni Esparza, then 15, and Joanne Murchland, then 14, testified they were at Huntington Beach on June 19, 1979. A man they both identified as defendant asked to take their pictures for a "bikini photo contest." He also offered them a ride and marijuana, and he tried to get their phone numbers. They contacted police when they saw defendant's picture on television news.

Lorrie Werts, 15, told of a similar experience with defendant at the beach on June 20. Police had found her photo in the Seattle storage locker. Her narrative was confirmed in large part by her companion, Patty Elmendorf. Several other people testified to seeing defendant at the beach in early to mid-afternoon on the 20th, though details of clothing and appearance varied.

In court, Bridgett Wilvert positively identified defendant as the photographer she and Robin had met at the beach on June 20 between 2 and 3 p.m. Jackye Young confirmed that identification.

According to Bridgett, she and Robin returned to Bridgett's apartment about 3:10. Robin said she had to hurry to a 4 p.m. ballet lesson; she was excited because she was "moving up to toe." Bridgett offered Robin her bike, a yellow Schwinn 24-inch model with turned-up handlebars, which was in the laundry room of the apartment building. Robin left dressed lightly in a red T-shirt, shorts, and tennis shoes. The bike has been missing since.

Marianne Frazer, Robin's mother, and Beverly Fleming, who owned a children's dance studio in Huntington Beach, confirmed that Robin was due but never arrived at a 5 p.m. dance class. She had taken ballet and gymnastics[36 Cal.3d 616] since she was four and was serious about her dancing. After her mother's recent accident, Robin had arranged to answer phones at the studio to pay for her classes. Both Bridgett and Fleming said Robin would never miss a class from disinterest.

Dana Crappa, a forest service worker, presented key evidence. She was a member of the spraying crew which had discovered Robin's body on July 2. She had been uncooperative in police interviews and evasive at the preliminary hearing. Much of what she said at trial was new, and she displayed great distress on the witness stand.

Crappa had previously admitted a near-collision with a distinctive Datsun like defendant's on the evening of June 21. The Datsun was parked at Rendezvous Turnout, less than a mile from the crime scene. Beside the car was a man wearing levis and a stained T-shirt. The car appeared to have dirt kicked up under the tires.

Crappa confirmed that information, but now revealed under persistent questioning that she had seen the same Datsun on the previous evening, June 20, between 5 and 5:30 p.m. The June 20 encounter took place at "Marker 11," a turnout less than 300 feet from where Robin's body was found. Crappa said two people with their backs to her, a man and a small girl with long blonde hair, were walking up the ravine away from the road. The man, wearing

Page 780

levis and a T-shirt, was "sort of forcefully steering" the girl up the gully. Crappa could not see whether he was touching [685 P.2d 1131] her or holding a weapon. The man turned and looked "straight through" Crappa, who thought something might be wrong but continued on

Crappa had testified at the preliminary hearing that the June 21 encounter occurred between 10 and 10:30 p.m. Having since retraced her activities for that day, she now thought it was more like 8 to 8:30. 2 In court, Crappa declared she was almost certain, but not "100 percent positive," that defendant was the man she had seen on both occasions.

Crappa further testified for the first time that she returned to Marker 11 between 7 and 7:30 on the evening of June 25 and walked up the ravine with a flashlight. With extreme difficulty, the prosecutor elicited that she had discovered a body. Part of the face was gone, and the corpse, apparently unclothed, was "pretty cut up." The hands and feet were missing, but Crappa could not say whether they had been cut off and could not "remember" whether the legs were hacked up. The head was "next to" the body, and [36 Cal.3d 617] she could not tell if it was severed. Nearby she saw a blue and yellow tennis shoe and what looked like shorts and a T-shirt. She found no knife. There were tire tracks in the area. Horrified, she left quickly and told no one.

Four days later, Crappa recounted, she was part of a spraying crew which included William Poepke. Poepke came upon a pile of bones in the same area. Thinking the remains were those of a deer, he picked up a bone and tossed it at her. She knew it was no deer.

That night, said Crappa, she visited the scene again. It was dark, but, closer to the roadway, her flashlight beam caught a shiny object. She could not say for sure that it was a knife but believed now that it was. She saw the body, "drawn out" and skeletal by then, the right arm missing. She found some blonde hair. The shorts, T-shirt, and tennis shoe were still there. Three days later Poepke discovered the skull, and the authorities were called.

Marianne Frazer, Robin's mother, confirmed that the earrings recovered from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
343 cases
  • People v. Sassounian
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1986
    ... ... (E.g., People v. Mattson (1984), supra, 37 Cal.3d 85, 207 Cal.Rptr. 278, 688 P.2d 887 [involving the separate crimes of rape and kidnapping]; People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 625, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126 [involving the separate crime of rape]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 552, 205 Cal.Rptr. 265, 684 P.2d 826, [involving the separate crime of robbery].) ...         As the court in Mattson noted, the rule which it ... ...
  • People v. Heishman
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1988
    ... ... This evidentiary purpose is not within the prohibition of Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), under which "evidence must be excluded ... if the inference it directly seeks to establish is solely one of propensity to commit crimes in general, or of a particular class" (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126, emphasis added) ...         Cases cited by defendant rejecting prior crimes offered as evidence of motive on the theory that "if a person acts similarly in similar situations, he probably harbors the same intent in each ... ...
  • People v. Ruiz
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1988
    ... ... If so, any inference of prejudice is dispelled. [Citation.]" ( Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 171-172, 222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480; see Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 448-449, 204 Cal.Rptr. 700, 683 P.2d 699; People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 633, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126 [admissibility of "other crimes" evidence]; People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 88, 201 Cal.Rptr. 567, 679 P.2d 1 [same].) According to the People, there were sufficient similarities between the Tanya charges and the Pauline/Tony ... ...
  • People v. Hovey
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1988
    ... ... [Citations.] Thus, there is substantial evidence of a 'planned' killing--the most important [749 P.2d 782] prong of the Anderson test." (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 626-627, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126.) ...         As for motive, the testimony of defendant's cellmates indicates that he killed Tina because her blindfold slipped and enabled her to view defendant adequately to identify him to the authorities. Once again, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Trial defense of dui in California
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient. [Citations.]” ( People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 624–625.) It is not necessary for the independent evidence to establish that the defendant was the perpetrator. ( People v. Cullen (1951) 37 C......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...People v. Albitre (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 895, §4:24.7.2 People v. Albright (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 883, §1:26 People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 624–625, §9:27 People v. Aldridge (1984) 35 Cal.3d 473, 478, §2:11.4 - OR - F-21 Table of Cases People v. Alford (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 612, §10:......

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