People v. Breaux

Decision Date30 December 1991
Docket NumberNo. S004760,S004760
Citation821 P.2d 585,1 Cal.4th 281,3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 821 P.2d 585 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Anthony BREAUX, Defendant and Appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart and George Williamson, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye and Robert R PANELLI, Justice.

[821 P.2d 588] Anderson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Ward A. Campbell, Roger E. Venturi and George M. Hendrickson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the murder, robbery, and kidnapping for robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 211, 209) 1 of Connie Lee Decker on June 17, 1984; robbery and kidnapping for robbery (§§ 211, 209) of Greg Hardy on June 17, 1984; assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (b)) on June 19, 1984; and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021). The jury also found that the murder was committed under the special circumstances of kidnapping and robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i) & (ii)) and that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.5). The court imposed a sentence of death and a consecutive sentence of 10 years, 8 months. This appeal is automatic (§ 1239, subd. (b)).

I

GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE

A. The Prosecution.

In the early hours of June 17, 1984, defendant entered a liquor store which he regularly patronized in Sacramento and, at gunpoint, robbed the cashier, Greg Hardy, of $200. Defendant ordered Hardy out of the store and threatened, "I'll kill you right here," when Hardy refused his order to get in a vehicle parked nearby. Hardy was released several blocks away. Hardy described defendant to the police, stating that he noticed nothing unusual about defendant, his walk, his manner of speech, or his physical actions.

At 5:30 p.m. of the same day defendant drove a maroon Corvette to a gas station and liquor store near Sacramento and, leaving a young woman passenger in the vehicle, hurriedly entered to leave $5 for gas. Paul Brown, cashier, noticed his haste and uneasiness, but nothing unusual about his speech or walk.

Tony Cox, assistant manager, observed that, while defendant was pumping the gas, a young woman at the phone booth was mouthing the words, "Help me." Defendant grabbed her by the hand and took her to the car. The woman continued to look at Cox, repeatedly mouthing, "Help me." As defendant sped away, Cox recorded the license number as CONNN182. Police shortly thereafter determined that a similar number (CONN182) was registered to Connie Decker.

Connie Decker's body was found about 8 o'clock the next morning inside a chain link fence near a road in Rancho Cordova. There was evidence that the body had been dragged between the road and the fence. Dr. Hall, at the scene, concluded, based on discoloration from blood pooling, that Decker had been killed at another location. Following an autopsy, Dr. Hall estimated that Decker had been killed in the afternoon of June 17 and stated the cause of death as a gunshot to the head.

On the afternoon of June 17 defendant borrowed a Thunderbird and, about 3 or 4 p.m., returned with a maroon Corvette, license plates "CONN182." He told a companion that he had pulled a gun on a lady at a liquor store and had driven her to the outskirts of town and "dumped her off." The companion remarked that the lady must be crying about her car; defendant replied that he did not think so. Defendant also stated that he was going to change the plates on the car because they were "too conspicuous."

A friend saw defendant in the Corvette at 8 p.m. on the evening of June 17. And shortly after 10 p.m. on the same evening, defendant filled a Corvette with gas. He attempted to pay with Decker's credit card. When told the card had expired, defendant made an excuse, wrote the vehicle's license number (1J80564) on the credit slip, and told the attendant he lived nearby and would get the cash. He never returned.

On the following day the police found the laundry truck from which the substitute plates had been taken. They had also found the Corvette.

The police set up a surveillance near the residence of defendant's mother and, in the early hours of June 19, defendant was observed in the vicinity. He ran when the officers approached and was chased on foot to a clubhouse in a nearby park. Cornered on the roof, he broke into the building, barricaded himself and, pointing a gun at the officer who had entered the building, said, "Back off, or I'll shoot." In the course of the standoff, which lasted 45 minutes, defendant resisted offers to surrender and at one point said, "This is the gun that killed her, but I didn't do it." A SWAT officer shot defendant in the arm and leg to disarm him.

On his arrest, defendant did not appear to be under the influence of anything; the officer who had chased him noted that defendant had no problems running and appeared to be in good physical condition. After treatment at the emergency hospital, defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk with a deputy sheriff. He admitted taking Decker's car at gunpoint for a "joyride." He related the following: Decker was killed by a "Mexican hitchhiker" whom defendant picked up on the interstate. He had left the Mexican and the girl to go "joyriding." In his absence the Mexican had shot Decker and put her in a dumpster. He and the Mexican changed the license plates and he "showed off" the car to his mother and friends. On the following day he and the Mexican moved the body from the dumpster to the place where it was found.

Search of the dumpster revealed items of Decker's clothing, a .32-caliber cartridge case, and a quantity of blood. The murder weapon was found, a .32 automatic pistol which belonged to a friend of defendant.

B. The Defense.

The persons with whom defendant lived in May and until June 10, 1984, testified that he was "hyper" and "paranoid." He sold drugs and carried a gun. Defendant was asked to leave when he cooked what appeared to be drugs on a spoon in the house and when he left his gun on the coffee table. James Henderson, a friend, agreed that before the murder defendant "started gettin' paranoid," and stated that defendant became a heroin addict "very quickly."

Tina Francis, a prostitute, met defendant shortly before the murder. They were together five or six days (or maybe only two) and purchased drugs with the money she earned by prostitution. Defendant injected cocaine 10 or 12 times a day, became explosive and angry for 30 to 45 minutes after he injected and became increasingly paranoid. The two were arrested on June 12 for being under the influence of heroin. She was in jail for six days and, on her release on June 18, she saw defendant with a red Corvette. He told her that he and another person had robbed a lady and taken the car. He also told her that the other person had shot the lady. Tina thought defendant was lying and suspected that he had committed the murder himself. She rejected his demand to become her "pimp" and later heard he had been arrested.

When he was arrested, defendant had a hypodermic injection kit in the pocket of his jacket. The syringe and the spoon had residue of cocaine and Ritalin. After his arrest (and before receiving a morphine injection in the emergency room), defendant gave a urine specimen which showed morphine or heroin, and cocaine.

Dr. Fred Rosenthal, defense psychiatrist, testified that, due to his heavy cocaine use and lack of sleep, defendant did not intend or premeditate the shooting of Decker. At the time of the shooting, the psychiatrist asserted, defendant was reacting impulsively and irrationally, he was frightened and paranoid, and his mental state was inconsistent with deliberation and premeditation. Dr. Rosenthal based his opinion largely on defendant's statements to him. Defendant told the psychiatrist that he kidnapped Decker to steal her car; he put her in a dumpster to delay her in reporting the theft to the police; he injected himself with cocaine and, when she banged on the

lid of [821 P.2d 590] the dumpster, he flew into a rage and shot her.

C. Prosecution Rebuttal.

Detective Bell testified that Tina Francis told him that she only knew defendant for two days before they were arrested together.

Tom Brown, investigator, testified that Jackie Henderson told him that he was watching television with defendant when the news of the discovery of Decker's body was broadcast. Defendant said at that time, "Oh, no, they've found her. They found her already. Damn. I thought it would take them longer to find her." Henderson asked defendant if he really did it. Defendant responded that he had no other choice, that he had to do it.

II.

PRETRIAL ISSUES

A. Recusal Motion.

Defendant moved to recuse the entire district attorney's office or, in the alternative, David Druliner, the deputy who prosecuted the case after August 1986. A conflict of interest allegedly existed because of connections or contacts by friends of the murder victim with the prosecutors. Defendant based his motion on the following: (1) the acquaintance of Druliner's wife with the victim; (2) Druliner's contacts with the social club of which the victim was a member and the club's interest in the case; and (3) the relationship between the victim and Craig Regan, a former deputy district attorney and municipal court commissioner who was acquainted with the prosecutors.

After an extensive hearing, the trial court found (1) no evidence that Mrs. Druliner attempted to influence her husband in any way; (2) no evidence that the social club put any pressure on the district attorney's office or that the office was influenced by the social club; and (3) that Commissioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
388 cases
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ...argued that defense counsel was a great lawyer because he spoke "out of both sides of his mouth"]; People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 306-307, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585 [the prosecutor argued that law students are taught to create confusion to benefit the defense]; People v. Bell (......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 2017
    ...discretion." (People v. Debose (2014) 59 Cal.4th 177, 209, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 326 P.3d 213 ; accord, People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 319, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585.) However, a court must exercise its power under section 1140 without coercing the jury, and "avoid displacing th......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 2022
    ...section 356 must have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence." ( People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 302, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585.) Evidence Code section 356 "applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the p......
  • People v. Morales
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 10 Agosto 2020
    ...a death verdict only if aggravating circumstances predominated and death is the appropriate verdict." ( People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 316, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585.) The use of "warrants" in place of "appropriate" does not undermine this message. ( People v. Landry , supra , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...948, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 765. It was permissible to call a witness a “weasel” and suggest that he was a perjurer. People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 281, 305, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81. It was acceptable for the attorney to argue that the other side was trying to confuse the jury and prevent them from......
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...The determination of whether there is a reasonable probability of agreement rests in the court’s discretion. People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 281, 319, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81. It is within the court’s discretion whether the circumstances warrant further inquiry and, thereafter, the presentati......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Rptr. 784, §4:170 Bravo v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1489, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910, §§19:80, 19:90 Breaux, People v. (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 281, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, §§21:120, 22:140 Brents, People v. (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 599, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66, §9:120 Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 ......

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