People v. Brommel, Cr. 1522
| Decision Date | 29 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1522 |
| Citation | 7 Cal.Rptr. 787 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Henry BROMMEL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Samuel Hurwitz, Orange, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ernest E. Sanchez, Deputy Atty. Gen., Kenneth Williams, Dist. Atty., and DeWitt C. Chatterton, Chief Trial Deputy, Santa Ana, for respondent.
Defendant was charged with the crime of murder. He was tried before a jury, convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Debra Jean Brommel, aged twenty-three months at death, is the alleged victim. She was born January 17, 1956, and died December 28, 1957. Defendant and his wife, Joyce Murphy Brommel, were the father and mother of Debra. The parents did not marry until August 31, 1957, some eighteen months after Debra's birth, but there is no dispute respecting parenthood. For about fifteen months prior to the marriage, Debra had been cared for exclusively by the Murphy family (Mrs. Brommel's mother, father, brothers and sisters), but principally by Mrs. Brommel's mother, Ramona Murphy. Shortly after marriage defendant and his wife assumed physical custody of Debra, although she continued to visit and be cared for at intervals by one or more of the Murphys. She died as the result of massive subdural hemorrhage brought on by some severe blow or blows which fractured her skull. Immediately prior to the discovery of this injury she was in the immediate and exclusive physical care of defendant. No one except defendant saw any blow or other application of force to the child's head which could have produced such an injury.
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient, aliunde defendant's admissions, to prove the corpus delicti sufficiently to allow the use of defendant's admissions made after the death.
1] In discussing the suffficiency of evidence on appeal, it must be borne in mind that the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be regarded as true, and contradictory evidence must be disregarded. Speaking of this subject, our Supreme Court, in People v. Merkouris, 52 Cal.2d 672, 678, 344 P.2d 1, 4, states:
'Therefore, the rule set forth in People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 680, 104 P.2d 778, is applicable, that is: In a criminal prosecution the weight of the evidence is for the jury to determine, and if the circumstances reasonably justify a verdict of guilty by the jury, an opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with the innocence of the defendant does not warrant a reversal of a verdict of guilty by the jury.'
Stated with this rule in mind, and disregarding the conflicts, the evidence of corpus delicti, in general substance, is as follows: During the fifteen months that Debra was under the care of her grandmother, Ramona Murphy, which was immediately prior to the time that defendant and his wife assumed Debra's physical care, the child lived a normal active life with the usual incidents, but no bruise marks appeared on her body or face. She apparently did not bruise easily. After physical custody was assumed early in September, 1957, by defendant and his wife, repeatedly when Debra was in the immediate and exclusive care of defendant, she was badly bruised or burned.
A specific occasion was related as of October 24 when Debra was in the exclusive, personal care of defendant. A neighbor was to care for Debra during the two hours between the time defendant was to go to work and defendant's wife was to return home from her work. The neighbor knocked at defendant's door. Defendant did not answer for about five minutes. When he did he opened the door a small crack and said, 'Wait a minute'. The neighbor then waited about ten minutes before he appeared. When caring for the child previously she had not taken the child in her arms. On this occasion Debra was clothed in coveralls. Defendant had her in his arms. He handed her to the neighbor without comment. The neighbor later discovered the child was in pain, examined her and found eight burns, two being on the buttocks and three on the inner aspect of each leg, the one on each leg being opposite to the one on the other leg. Later the child was taken to a doctor who also found burns on the genetalia, four red stripes showing burns on the right ankle and bruises on her face. Defendant later, and prior to Debra's death, stated the burns occurred because the child was standing on the floor furnace with her feet in her father's shoes. The doctor testified that the burns could not have occurred in the manner described by defendant. The burns were sufficiently severe that the doctor treated them fourteen times over a period of more than a month. Mrs. Murphy cared for Debra from October 24 to November 10. After the Brommels then resumed care of Debra, other bruises appeared, specific instances being related by both medical and lay testimony of observations on December 12, 17 and 23. Defendant lost his job about the middle of November and thereafter had more care of Debra than before.
On December 26, Debra was taken to the Murphy household, and appeared tired, whined a little. When picked up the movements of her body seemed 'flighty' meaning she 'flinched', she had black and blue marks on her face and she put her hand to the left side of her head. Next day, December 27, 1957, defendant came into Mrs. Murphy's home carrying Debra. Debra was unconscious. Defendant stated she had fallen out of a chair, backwards. She was taken to the hospital, where her head was operated on. She died the next morning due to massive subdural hemorrhage. An autopsy revealed that she had injuries to her head and face which resulted from a minimum of five separate and distinct applications of force. She had a bruise over the back of the right ear which must have resulted from a force which caught the ear and bent it forward. There was also a bruise on the upper cheek bone just below the outer angle of the right eye. There were four to six other bruises on the right cheek and the front of the right ear which were a week or more old, and a third bruise on the angle of the right jaw which must have resulted from substantial force. Four or five bruises were on the left cheek bone and lower on the left cheek, and still another bruise on the angle of the left jaw. There were abrasions on the tip of the nose, the forehead and the lip, which were more recent, and a laceration halfway through the inner lip. The doctors were of the opinion that this laceration must have been caused by some force pulling the lip directly up and away from the gum, or a fall catching the lip on an overhanging object. There were contusions and abrasions on the left chest, a swelling over the right eye and a healed trauma below the naval over the intestines. Her right arm had bruises which resulted from a minimum of two applications of force. There were several bruises near the right shoulder and marks on the mid-upper right arm which had the appearance of teeth marks from a hard bite. Spot burn scars as hereinbefore noted were apparent, and an ulceration or sore on the fourth toe of the left foot. The doctor described this as the kind and shape of burn that would have been caused by the end of a burning cigarette. Her skull was fractured and there was a massive subdural hemorrhage. In the opinion of three surgeons, it probably would not have been caused by simple fall such at that described by defendant.
In addition, the autopsy revealed a tearing of the right lung at the lower portion of its attachment, and contusions or bruises on both sides of the front portions of the same lung, bruises on the spleen and tearing of the ligamentous attachment of the liver to the diaphragm. The medical evidence clearly indicates that these internal injuries could not normally be expected as a result of a fall from a chair.
The doctors estimated the injury causing the death to have occurred from a few to forty-eight hours prior to death. Many of the bruise marks appeared to be older. Their estimates differentiated the ages of these and ranged from one to five days or more. The internal injuries were estimated to have occurred forty-eight to seventy-two hours prior to death. In the opinion of the doctors the internal injuries were not the immediate cause of death, but rather, the cause of death was the massive subdural hemorrhage of the brain.
Rules relative to the quantum or degree of evidence to establish the corpus delicti for the purpose of permitting the use of extrajudicial statements made by defendant after the commission of the crime have been established and reestablished by innumerable authorities throughout the United States. While there have been a few opinions rendered which seem to establish requirements more rigid than those expressed in the general rule, the vast majority of cases clearly abide by the rule as repeatedly announced and used by the California Supreme Court. At the outset, it is well to have in mind, and to keep in mind while reading the enunciations of the various authorities, the reason for the rule. This reason is that through long and bitter experience in the history of the administration of justice, alleged confessions or admissions were, on some occasions, due to the mental turmoil and strain of the defendant under the excitement and fear induced by the fact of arrest and confinement under the charge, or by excessive insistence of over-zealous police officers, obtained to crimes that did not, in fact, exist. Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 152, 75...
To continue reading
Request your trial