People v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 01 October 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 7584
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 406 P.2d 43 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Arthur ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 763

46 Cal.Rptr. 763

63 Cal.2d 351, 406 P.2d 43

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Arthur ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 7584.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Oct. 1, 1965.

Paul A. Mansfield, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Jose, for defendant and appellant.

Robert H. Lund, E. Fred Lightner, William T. Pillsbury, David H. Battin, Long Beach, and Jim F. Kingham, London, England, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk and Thomas C. Lynch, Attys. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Robert R. Granucci and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attys. Gen., Louis P. Bergna, Dist. Atty., and John Schatz, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff and respondent.

TOBRINER, Justice.

Defendant was charged with the murder of a ten-year-old girl, Victoria Hammond. The jury returned its verdict finding defendant guilty of first degree murder; it found defendant sane and fixed the penalty at death. The appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

We set out our reasons for holding that the evidence did not warrant instructions on murder committed in the perpetration of mayhem or on murder perpetrated by means of torture. We explain why we have concluded that the admission of defendant's incriminating statements in violation of his constitutional right counsel worked prejudicial error. We point out that the trial court erred in giving an instruction as to defendant's failure to testify and in permitting the prosecutor to comment upon it. We explain that the court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony at the guilt trial disclosing statements made by defendant during an examination did not result in constitutional deprivation because the trial court provided the necessary safeguards for defendant's protection. We also set forth the errors committed in the penalty trial.

The Facts

Defendant, a San Jose cab driver, had been living for about eight months with a Mrs. Hammond and her three children, Cynthia, aged 17, Kenneth, aged 13, and the victim, Victoria, aged 10. On the morning of the day of the killing, December 7, 1962, Mrs. Hammond departed for work and the children left for school. Defendant, who had been drinking, and who had not worked for the past few days, stayed home.

Kenneth testified the when the arrived home from school at about 4:30 p. m. he notice that all the blinds had been drawn. He went directly to the basement, where he had a microscope, and stayed there approximately 15 minutes. While in the basement Kenneth heard sounds from the room overhead 'like she (Victoria) was cleaning up her room' and also heard the shower running. The boy then proceeded upstairs to his room by way of the back portch, changed his clothes, and returned to the back porch, where he knocked on the locked kitchen door. When defendant, dressed only in slacks, opened the door, Kenneth notice blood on the kitchen floor and asked defendant about it. Defendant answered that he had cut himself. The boy then left the house.

Mrs. Hammond testified that when the returned home at about 5:00 p. m. she noticed blood on the couch and asked defendant what had happened. Defendant replied that Kenneth had cut himself. When, somewhat later, Mrs. Hammond saw Kenneth, she discovered the falsity of defendant's statement. Confronted with the discrepancy, defendant told her that Victoria, not Kenneth, had been cut but that Victoria was 'all right' and visiting a friend. At 6:00 p. m. Kenneth entered Victoria's bedroom, discovered her brutally slain body under boxes and clothes next to the bed, ran out of the house screaming, and called the police.

When the police arrived, defendant, after first failing to open the door, finally did so. The police saw next to the bed the nude body of the victim pierced by numerous knife wounds; they found a knife upon the bed and blood throughout the premises. Bloody footprints approximately the size of the victim's feet stained the hallway between the master bedroom and the victim's room. The victim's torn and bloodsoaked clothes were found near the body and in an adjoining room. Her dress appeared to have been ripped off; the crotch had been cut out of the panties. Defendant gave the police explanation as to what had happened. He was then arrested and taken to police headquarters.

The police interrogated defendant that night and the following morning. During the questioning defendant on several occasions requested counsel. Ignoring these requests, the police persisted in the inquiry.

Defendant stated to the police that he must have killed the girl, but insisted throughout the investigation that he did not remember committing the act. He said that he had been drinking when the victim came home late in the afternoon. After he tole her that she could not visit a friend until she cleaned up the house, the girl became angry and cursed him. Engraged, he slapped her and, after taking a few more drinks, went out to the kitchen after her. He said that the next thing that he remembered was looking down at the victim's bleeding body. He dragged the body into the bedroom. He then cleaned up some of the blood and showered. In response to lengthy police questioning, defendant admitted that he had engaged in prior oral and manual sexual activity with the victim and described the acts in detail. He denied having attempted any sexual acts with the victim on the day of the killing.

The autopsy report disclosed that the girl died from the result of lacerations of the left lung. The report listed 41 wounds ranging over the entire body from the head to the extremities. One of the custs extended from the rectum through the vagina. Additionally, the tongue was cut. Many of the wounds, including the latter two, were designated post mortem. Cigarette traces were found in one wound and a cigarette butt in another. The flesh, however, had not been burned. The mortician testified that he observed approximately 20 more superficial custs, bringing the total to over 60 wounds. Although the hymen was missing, specimens taken from the victim indicate no evidence of spermatozoa. ¹

The prosecution contended that defendant, after being sexually aroused by alcohol, attempted to molest Victoria again, that she refused and either threatened to implicate defendant or to scream, and that defendant killed her to silence her. The prosecution predicated a first degree murder conviction on any one of the following bases: (1) murder with premeditation and deliberation, (2) murder by means of torture, (3) murder in the perpetration of mayhem, and (4) murder in the commission of a Penal Code section 288 offense.

The defense primarily sought to prove that defendant killed the victim during an epileptic seizure. Thus both Doctors Pinto and Skillicorn testified that defendant's history disclosed epilepsy and that he perpetrated the crime while suffering from a psychomotor seizure. Moreover, defendant's medical records disclosed a number of congenital deformities. Doctor Clark testified that epilepsy is common in persons having defendant's skull defects.

The defense also developed testimony to show defendant's history of prior exhibitions of explosive temper. Mrs. Hammond, testifying for the prosecution admitted on cross-examination that defendant had in the past become violently angry and smashed furniture. Defendant's mother related to Dr. Pinto that defendant had, when angry, broken toilet seats, ripped a phone off the wall, and wrecked a coffee table.

Dr. Walter Rapaport, a court-appointed psychiatrist, testified that defendant did not suffer from any mental condition preventing him from forming a specific intent or from premeditating. The psychiatrist said that in his opinion, defendant, when he killed the yound girl, did not undergo an epileptic seizure. Dr. Rapaport pointed out that defendant's behavior following the act was incompatible with the possibility of such a seizure. A conisderable amount of conflicting testimony bore upon the question whether defendant suffered from epilepsy and whether at the time of the killing he had suffered an epileptic attack.

While being examined by Dr. Rapaport, defendant gave a description of the events surrounding the death of the victim that was similar to the one he gave the police. In response to a question by the prosecution, Dr. Rapaport testified that defendant told him that he had engaged in sexual misconduct wtih the victim at times during the several months prior to her death. On cross-examination, Dr. Pinto alos acknowledged that defendant had told him of the sexual acts with the victim and of sexual misconduct with the victim's 13-year-old brother.

The prosecution admitted and defendant testified that he had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol on the day of the murder. At 7:45 p. m., approximately three and one-half hours after the killing, an expert for the prosecution took a sample of defendant's blood. At that time defendant registered close to .34 per cent alcohol in the bloodstream, which, the expert explained, reaches well into the range of impairment of the higher centers of the brain. He testified that all individuals, regardless of susceptibility or tolerance, show some signs of impairment at .24 per cent alcohol in the bloodstream. From below .30 per cent to between .40 and .50 unconsciousness results. ² Numerous prosecution witnesses testified, however, that defendant had shown no signs of drunkenness that evening. The testimony of Mrs. Hammond and defendant tended to establish that defendant had consumed some of the alcohol after the crime.

(1) The insufficiency of the evidence to warrant certain instructions.

The court instructed the jury on the prosecution's four possible theories of first degree murder: (a) murder which is commmitted in the perpetration of mayhem; (b) murder which is perpetrated by means of torture; (c) murder which is committed in the perpetration of any act punishable under Penal Code section...