People v. Bryden

Decision Date16 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. A075154,A075154
Citation73 Cal.Rptr.2d 554,63 Cal.App.4th 159
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2860, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3875 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Payton BRYDEN et al., Defendants and Appellants. In re Joaquin Leon PADIN on Habeas Corpus.

Paul Couenhoven, Under Appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Joaquin Leon Padin.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Thomas A. Brady, Deputy Attorney General, Aileen Bunney, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LAMBDEN, Associate Justice.

Defendants Jeffrey Payton Bryden (Bryden) and Joaquin Leon Padin (Padin) appeal from a judgment following their conviction of second degree murder. Defendants were jointly tried for the murder of Brian Friberg (Friberg). The published portion of this appeal pertains to Padin's challenges to his conviction, and the unpublished portion involves Bryden's appeal. Defendants raise various challenges to their conviction and Padin argues in his petition for habeas corpus relief that he had ineffective trial counsel. We are not persuaded by any of defendants' arguments.

BACKGROUND

An information filed on October 26, 1994, charged defendants with the murder of Friberg (Pen.Code, § 187) with a deadly and dangerous weapon (id. § 12022, subd. (b)). The information also alleged that Padin had two prior serious felony convictions (id. §§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)) and Bryden had four prior prison terms (id. § 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendants pleaded not guilty on October 27, 1994. Both defendants moved to sever their trial, and the court denied their motions.

On September 13, 1995, after a 13-day jury trial, the court declared a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The hung jury was split: Nine voted for acquittal and three voted guilty.

Defendants pleaded not guilty to the reinstituted charges on October 13, 1995. Both defendants moved for severance of the trial, which was again denied.

A second jury trial began on March 25, 1996, and defendants moved to bifurcate the trial on the prior convictions and prison term allegations. The court granted the motions.

At trial, the prosecution presented witnesses Robert Vandevort (Vandevort) and his wife Kathy Vandevort (Kathy). Both Vandevort and Kathy were granted immunity for all nonviolent offenses in exchange for their cooperation.

Vandevort testified that he had numerous felony convictions, including being a convicted ex-felon in possession of a firearm and accessory after the fact in connection with this case. He also admitted prior drug use and acknowledged that he had stabbed several people while in custody at different penal institutions.

Vandevort met Padin when they were cellmates at Corcoran prison. While in prison, they discussed their plans after their release from prison, which included robbing people, setting up a methamphetamine lab, and eventually "go [ing] straight." Padin told Vandevort that he had connections with "big time" crooks in Northern California.

When the two men were released on parole in 1993, they remained in contact. Padin went to live at his aunt's home in East Contra Costa County, which was known as the "ranch."

In November 1993, Vandevort and Kathy came to the ranch and brought Bryden and Friberg with them. Bryden and Friberg allegedly knew how to make methamphetamine. Vandevort, Kathy, Friberg, and Padin stayed at the ranch and Bryden stayed a couple of miles away in the basement of the house of Padin's cousin.

Vandevort, Padin, and a friend of Padin's, Lisa Eastridge (Eastridge), met with various individuals, attempting to set up robberies. When no significant opportunity materialized, Vandevort began to have misgivings about Padin and believed he was "all talk and no action."

During this time, tension festered among the men. Vandevort stabbed Bryden while he was sleeping. On another occasion, a number of people were sitting at the table when Bryden commented that Kathy and Friberg were sexually involved. Vandevort charged into the kitchen and punched Bryden into the kitchen wall. Bryden slammed Vandevort to the floor and jumped on top of him. Vandevort testified that Padin then stabbed Bryden in the back, but Padin testified that Vandevort stabbed Bryden in the back.

Eventually Vandevort and Padin obtained a small amount of phenyl oil, which could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Friberg, however, was unable to make methamphetamine, and succeeded only in converting the oil into a paste.

Vandevort and his wife then left the ranch to go to Southern California for the Thanksgiving holiday. Friberg and Bryden were to remain at the ranch to continue trying to manufacture methamphetamine.

On December 3, 1993, Vandevort and his wife drove back to Northern California, because Padin had told him that he had set up a robbery of a drug dealer. When Vandevort and his wife arrived, they found that the gate to the ranch was padlocked. According to Vandevort, Bryden met them at the gate Once they entered the ranch, Bryden approached Vandevort and told him he needed to speak with him in the garage. After they entered the garage, Bryden, according to Vandevort, disclosed that Friberg was dead. Bryden confided that he had brought a small knife into the garage and repeatedly stabbed Friberg; he also reported that he had cut Friberg's throat. Vandevort observed an object which he believed to be Friberg's body; it was wrapped in "curtain sheet-type material" with the ends sealed.

and reported that Padin had the key but was gone. Kathy testified that Bryden did not meet them at the gate; rather, he was already inside the compound when they approached the ranch. Both Vandevort and Kathy agreed that Vandevort used bolt cutters to gain entry.

When Padin returned, Vandevort testified that he asked Vandevort if Bryden had told him about Friberg. Padin later told Vandevort that he had walked into the garage when Friberg was shooting into the wall. Padin then hit Friberg in the back of the head with a baseball bat. Padin stated that he left the garage and entered the kitchen to retrieve a larger knife. When he returned, he stabbed Friberg in the heart. Vandevort stated that Padin instructed Bryden while Bryden was stabbing Friberg: "That's how you do it.... Now cut his throat." Padin also told Vandevort that Friberg had been stealing from him.

On December 3, 1993, Vandevort, Kathy, Bryden, Padin, and Padin's girlfriend, Debbie Orum (Orum), discussed how to dispose of Friberg's body. They decided to have Vandevort and Bryden transport the body to the river in the trunk of Vandevort's automobile. According to Vandevort, Padin and a "kid" at the ranch drove ahead of Vandevort and Bryden to point out the road to take. Padin and the other young man left after telling them to go down a dirt road. Kathy, however, stated that Padin remained at the ranch when Vandevort and Bryden left to bury the body.

Vandevort and Bryden buried the body; they then drove a short distance and went fishing.

While Vandevort and Bryden were gone, Kathy and Orum attempted to remove the blood stains in the garage. Kathy and the others examined Friberg's personal items, and Padin claimed to have found some rings that his aunt had mentioned were missing.

When Vandevort and Bryden returned, Vandevort testified that Padin became angry because Vandevort had not brought back two of Friberg's fingers. Padin had asked Vandevort to bring back two fingers so he could prove to his relative that he had killed the person who had robbed his family.

The following week, Vandevort and Eastridge continued to try to set up crimes and they attempted to find Padin and Orum, who had disappeared. Vandevort wanted to locate them to ensure they could "get their stories straight" about what had happened to Friberg.

Vandevort decided to steal motorcycles from Calvin Sickler's motorcycle shop. About 1 a.m., on December 10, 1993, Vandevort, Kathy, Bryden, and Eastridge arrived at the shop with two rented U-Haul trucks, which were to be used to load the motorcycles. They aborted the scheme when they noticed a number of automobiles; Vandevort believed he had been "set up."

Later that day, Padin told Vandevort to return the trucks and meet him at the ranch so they could talk. When Vandevort and Kathy arrived at the ranch, the lights were on but no one appeared to be at the ranch. Vandevort panicked, believing that he was being set up, and Kathy and he left the ranch.

The same evening, on December 10, California Highway Patrol Sergeant Mark Fields (Fields) attempted to pull over the car driven by Vandevort. A high speed chase ensued, and Fields observed Kathy throw a gun out of the vehicle. Fields arrested the Vandevorts after their automobile spun out. A search of the car uncovered a gun with a homemade silencer, a loaded .22 shotgun with special wadcutter bullets, numerous knives, and a set of bolt cutters. Vandevort asked the officer who had reported him.

The Vandevorts were transported separately to the California Highway Patrol Martinez Vandevort provided information about Friberg's murder, and Kathy and he were transported separately to the burial site. Vandevort pointed out Friberg's grave.

office. Once there, Vandevort told Fields that he had information about another crime and he wanted to make a deal. The police allowed Vandevort and Kathy to talk to each other for about 15 to 30 minutes, but Fields testified that he could hear the couple conversing and they did not discuss the actual events surrounding the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • People v. Lopez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Junio 2005
    ...moral turpitude, and we cannot imagine one. Determining whether this lapse was prejudicial is not easy. In People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 159, 73 Cal. Rptr.2d 554, arrest evidence was determined not to be prejudicial when the defense attorney successfully objected and the witnesses ......
  • Polanski v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2009
    ...[Citation.] `"[I]t is their sworn duty to see that the defendant has a fair and impartial trial...."' [Citation.]" (People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 159, 182 .) This role as an administrator of justice should prompt the district attorney's office to internally investigate whether the ......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 23 Enero 2009
    ...1235] [holding that evidence of prior arrests was inadmissible because it suggested the defendant had a bad character]; People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 159, 183 [assuming that questioning of witnesses about their arrests and misdemeanor convictions was prosecutorial misconduct, but f......
  • People v. Reyes
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ..."[r]ebuttal argument must permit the prosecutor to fairly respond to arguments by defense counsel." (People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 159, 184, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 554;4 see People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal.2d 536, 562, 58 Cal.Rptr. 340, 426 P.2d 908.) Indeed, "even otherwise prejudicial prose......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...People v. Kynette (1940) 15 Cal. 2d 731, 757, 104 P. 2d 794. These illustrations may include: • Charts. People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 159, 184, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554 (chart comparing witness’ testimony with his written note, telephone conversation and other facts in the case); Peo......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...§2:190 Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, People v. (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 335, 178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185, §§10:110, 22:100 Bryden, People v. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 159, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, §§9:110, 16:80 Buckley, In re (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 237, 110 Cal. Rptr. 121, §§20:20, 20:50 Buckley v. California Coas......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...v. D. & G. Escrow Corp. (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 616, 624, 122 Cal. Rptr. 150. • The statement is privileged. People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 159, 175, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554; see Ch. 7. • Unavailability of the declarant is determined by the circumstances of each case. People v. Cummin......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§12.2.2(2)(b); Ch. 4-C, §7.4.3(2); §9.2.2(2); Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(b)[4]; Ch. 7, §2.1.2; §2.2.1(1); §2.3; §3.1.1(1)(d) People v. Bryden, 63 Cal. App. 4th 159, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554 (1st Dist. 1998)—Ch. 6, §3.4.2(3) People v. Buenrostro, 6 Cal. 5th 367, 240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 704, 430 P.3d 1179 (Cal......
  • 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