People v. Boyer

Decision Date13 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. S004656,S004656
Citation48 Cal.3d 247,768 P.2d 610,256 Cal.Rptr. 96
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 768 P.2d 610 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Delmer BOYER, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 24265.

Barbara A. Caulfield, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Steven M. Garrett, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Steven H. Zeigen and Jay M. Bloom, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

EAGLESON, Justice.

Defendant Richard Delmer Boyer was convicted in Orange County Superior Court of two counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189 )1 and two counts of robbery ( § 211). The jury sustained an allegation that defendant had used a deadly weapon, a knife, in each of the offenses ( § 12022, subd. (b)). It also found as special circumstances under the 1978 death penalty statute that defendant had been convicted of more than one murder in the proceeding ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that each of the murders was committed intentionally in the course of a robbery ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)). After a penalty trial, the jury imposed a death sentence. The trial judge sustained the penalty verdict ( § 190.4, subd. (e)), and a judgment of death was entered. This appeal is automatic.

We confront the relatively rare but distressing case in which the outcome is determined by the constable's blunders. Defendant's inculpatory statement to the police was obtained in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The courts below should therefore have granted defendant's motions to suppress the statement. Its admission at his guilt trial was prejudicial by any applicable standard. We must therefore reverse the judgment in its entirety.

However, we reject defendant's contention that other material evidence of his guilt was also suppressible as "tainted fruit" of the illegal police conduct. This remaining evidence, we conclude, may be admitted in any retrial.

I. GUILT TRIAL
A. Prosecution case-in-chief.

On the evening of December 7, 1982, Francis and Eileen Harbitz, an elderly Fullerton couple, were robbed and stabbed to death in their home. There were no signs of forced entry. The bodies were discovered several days later by the victims' son William, who had become concerned for his parents because they had not responded to his calls and had not been seen.

William testified he knew defendant, who was also acquainted with the victims. On several occasions, defendant helped the elder Harbitzes around the house, and he owed them money. Defendant had been at the senior Harbitzes' home about four months before the killings, and William had not seen or heard from him for a long while thereafter. However, in the week before December 7, William received several telephone calls from defendant. In one conversation, defendant indicated he was struggling to survive financially.

Under a grant of immunity, John Kennedy testified that he and defendant purchased and injected cocaine together on the afternoon of December 7. Kennedy used $25 of his own money to buy the drug. After consuming the cocaine, the two men went to the home of defendant's parents, where defendant was to get money to pay Kennedy back. When he emerged from his parents' residence, defendant claimed he had the money, but he did not immediately give it to Kennedy.

Defendant later indicated he wanted to go to the residence of someone named Bill to collect some money Bill owed him. Kennedy drove defendant to a neighborhood in Fullerton. At defendant's direction, Kennedy parked on a side street, then waited while defendant crossed a yard and disappeared. Defendant was wearing a knife in a sheath. After 45 or 50 minutes, defendant returned carrying a towel. At that moment, a police or security car passed by, and defendant used the towel to wipe off the rear window of Kennedy's vehicle.

Defendant then got into Kennedy's car and told him to drive off calmly without attracting attention. Kennedy noticed a spot of blood on defendant's knife. While they were driving, defendant disclosed he had been stabbed in the leg, and he put the towel over his left knee. Defendant said there had been dope dealers in the house who had no dope and wanted to hurt him, but he had hurt them instead. At defendant's direction, Kennedy proceeded back toward defendant's El Monte residence, using the "605" and San Bernardino freeways. During the trip, defendant went through two wallets. He threw one out the window along the San Bernardino freeway and discarded the other in a sewer ditch beside an offramp in Temple City. Defendant eventually repaid Kennedy for the cocaine.

Cindy Cornwell, also granted immunity for her testimony, disclosed that she and her three children lived with defendant from October 1982 until his arrest. The sole household income was Cornwell's welfare check, and they were in severe economic straits. Cornwell knew defendant had no money on December 7, 1982, because he asked her for $30 that morning. Later that day, he left with Kennedy, saying he wanted to sell a shotgun to his parents to get cash and would be "right back."

Defendant returned home in the evening with a stab wound near his left knee. He said he had been unable to sell the gun to his parents, and had been knifed in an argument with a loan shark whom he next approached. Defendant told Cornwell he had ultimately obtained $10 for the shotgun. He displayed the money, which consisted of two separate bundles of five $1 bills.

On the evening of December 14, defendant told Cornwell he had done something which would make her "mad at him" but gave no further details. Shortly thereafter, Fullerton detectives arrived and asked defendant to accompany them to the station for an interview. Later that evening, after consulting defendant and her attorney, Cornwell gave the police permission to search the residence. Before the police arrived to search, Cornwell burned the light blue jacket defendant had worn on December 7. Cornwell said her motive was to distract defendant when he returned from the police station by telling him she had burned the jacket but was buying him a new one for Christmas.

Cornwell had seen defendant drunk "many times"; by early December 1982 she was aware he smoked marijuana and used cocaine daily. However, defendant seemed sober when he returned on the night of December 7. Cornwell also indicated that defendant habitually wore a knife on his belt, but had stopped doing so after that day.

During the December 14 search of the home shared by defendant and Cornwell, police found pants stained with blood similar to that of the victims. A bloodstained knife was also seized from the residence. The stains on the knife were of human origin, but were too small to allow closer analysis.

While at the Fullerton police station on December 14, defendant admitted killing the Harbitzes. His recorded interview with Detective Lewis was played for the jury. During the interview, defendant said he had been drinking on December 7 and "was on cola that night, cocaine." He went to his parents to obtain money, but was unsuccessful. He next tried to find William Harbitz for the same purpose, but William had moved from the last address defendant knew. Defendant shared a PCP cigarette with his friend Melody. He then proceeded to the senior Harbitzes' residence, driving a car borrowed from Kennedy. 2 His purpose was to find out where William lived. When he arrived, he "had bennies in [him]" as well as "cocaine ... and PCP"; he "was definitely on the stuff."

According to defendant's statement, Mrs. Harbitz admitted him cordially. They chatted briefly in the kitchen. Defendant was beginning to feel faint. Mrs. Harbitz encouraged him to say hello to her husband, who was watching television in the bedroom. Defendant did so. While in the bedroom, he noticed Mr. Harbitz's wallet on the dresser. He began to form a "crazy idea" to rob the Harbitzes or obtain money from them somehow.

He emerged from the bedroom, feeling more and more dizzy, and encountered Mrs. Harbitz. As he followed her back down the hall toward the kitchen, he decided to take the couple's wallets and money. At that time, he did not intend to harm them. However, as he placed his hand over Mrs. Harbitz's mouth, he "freaked out" and began to stab her again and again. She broke free and screamed for her husband. Mr. Harbitz came into the hallway and began hitting defendant with his cane. Defendant then "tore into" Mr. Harbitz with the knife. Sometime during the attacks, defendant stabbed himself in the leg but did not realize it at the time.

After the assaults, defendant recounted, he retrieved Mr. Harbitz's wallet from the bedroom dresser. 3 He then rinsed off the knife in the kitchen sink. Mrs. Harbitz's purse was in the kitchen, and he removed her wallet. He took a towel for his leg, left by the front door, and drove away. He removed the cash from the wallets--about $40 in all--and threw them out of the car along the "605" freeway. He also threw the towel away. However, defendant indicated that his bloody jacket, trousers, and knife were still in the house he shared with Cornwell.

Defendant said that just before he grabbed Mrs. Harbitz, he developed a severe headache; then he "started just freakin' out." He was "seeing colors," "flashes" went through his head, and the room "started spinnin'." When Mrs. Harbitz struggled, defendant drew his knife; as he did, he remembered thinking, "I get too involved in, in, violent movies. Okay? And I was thinking of something into that nature at the time. I don't know if I was puttin' myself in, in one of the actor's spots or something...." He remembered only "pieces" of the episode and could not recall where or how many times he had stabbed the victims. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
190 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 3, 2022
    ...those properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained." ( People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610 ( Boyer ); accord, People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 931, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933.) We review Miranda c......
  • Chitwood v. Gipson, Case No. 1:13-cv-00502 AWI MJS (HC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 29, 2014
    ...facts, and those properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained. [Citation.]" (People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 263, disapproved on another ground in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1.)The exclusionary rule extends to the f......
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 28, 1993
    ...the event the suspect is indigent. (384 U.S. at pp. 444-445, 473-474, 86 S.Ct. at pp. 1612-1613, 1627-1628; People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 271, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610.) Once having invoked these rights, the accused "is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities u......
  • People v. Mattson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 3, 1990
    ...and those properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained" (People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247, 263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610), we may " 'give great weight to the considered conclusions' of a lower court that has previously reviewed the sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...COA (F058082) (Calif. Sup. Ct. # S182172), §9:26.2 People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 565-566, §9:14.1 People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, §§8:22.1, 9:15 People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469, §1:26.3 People v. Boyette (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1527, §5:81.1 People v. Boyette (200......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...because she was married to D, was coowner of home with 50% interest in it, and had full access to entire area); People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 276-77 (domestic partner had authority to consent), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824; People v. Smith (......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...38 Cal. 4th 412, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677, 133 P.3d 581 (2006)—Ch. 3-B, §12.3.1(1)(b); §15.1; Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(3)(e); §4.2.2 People v. Boyer, 48 Cal. 3d 247, 256 Cal. Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610 (1989)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(b)[1][a]; C, §2.1.1(1); §2.2.3(2)(b)[1] People v. Boyette, 29 Cal. 4th 381, 127 ......
  • 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
    ...on the subject, whether objective indicia of arrest is present, and the length and form of questioning), see People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, incriminating statements made by the accused at this juncture are generally admissible notwithstanding the lack of Miranda warnings. See Berkeme......
  • 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