People v. Butler

• Decision Date: 09 January 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 9872
• Citation: 65 Cal.2d 569,421 P.2d 703,55 Cal.Rptr. 511
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 421 P.2d 703 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harrison BUTLER, Defendant and Appellant. In Bank

Page 511

55 Cal.Rptr. 511

65 Cal.2d 569, 421 P.2d 703

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harrison BUTLER, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 9872.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Jan. 9, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1967.

[421 P.2d 704] [65 Cal.2d 570] George V. Denny, III, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

TRAYNOR, Chief Justice.

Defendant was charged by information with the murder of Joseph H. Anderson and with assault with intent to murder William Russell Locklear. A jury convicted defendant of first degree felony murder and of assault with a deadly weapon; it fixed the penalty for the murder at death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

We have determined that error in the guilt phase of the trial deprived defendant of his primary defense to the charge of first degree felony murder. The judgment of conviction of murder must therefore be reversed.

Joseph H. Anderson operated a catering service in Los Angeles at the time of his death, and William Locklear assisted him. On the evening of May 18, 1965, Locklear was at Anderson's home where he planned to remain for the night. He testified that the doorbell rang shortly after midnight while he was in the bedroom. He heard little for 20 to 30 minutes after that because he was in the shower. When he returned to the bedroom he heard Anderson call, 'Bill, he's got a gun.' Anderson then entered the bedroom followed by defendant, whose hand was in his coat pocket. Locklear did not see a gun until two or three minutes later when defendant produced one from 'someplace.' Anderson attempted to seize the gun, it fired and Anderson fell. Locklear tried to apprehend defendant but was himself shot and lost consciousness. Defendant was gone when Locklear regained consciousness.

Defendant testified that he met Anderson several weeks before the killing and that Anderson employed him on one occasion to do catering work. Anderson did not pay him for the work, and when he requested payment Anderson asked him to wait a few days. On the evening of May 18th, defendant went to Anderson's home to obtain payment. While the two were sitting in the living room discussing the debt, Anderson made an indecent proposal and, when defendant rejected it, offered to double the money he owed defendant. Defendant also refused this offer telling Anderson he needed his money and wished only to be paid.

Defendant also testified that at this point Anderson agreed to pay him, but they had two or three drinks together before Anderson started toward the bedroom to get the money. Anderson apparently changed his mind and returned to discuss his earlier proposition. Defendant persisted in his refusal, and Anderson again went to the bedroom. Defendant testified that when he entered the bedroom a few seconds later, Anderson approached him with a pistol. He had not previously been aware of Locklear's presence, but he then saw Locklear lying on the bed. Defendant stated that he had armed himself before going to Anderson's home because he had heard stories about Anderson's brutality, and that when he saw a gun in Anderson's hand, he brought out his own to defend himself. Anderson called to Locklear that defendant had a gun and threw a towel or bathrobe at defendant. Defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot, but as the towel was thrown at him, Anderson grabbed his arm and the gun fired. After Anderson was shot, Locklear jumped up and as he came forward defendant shot him too. Defendant then ran to the living room and back to the bedroom where he looked for money. Finding none, he took a wallet and ran from the house.

No evidence of premeditation or deliberation was adduced by the prosecution. The court instructed the jury that since these elements were not present, it could find first degree murder only if defendant committed the killing in the perpetration of a robbery.

Defendant testified that he did not intend to rob Anderson when he went to the house, but intended only to recover money owed to him. Over his objection, the prosecutor argued to the jury, 'If you think a man owes you a hundred dollars, or fifty dollars, or five dollars, or a dollar, and you go over with a gun to try to get his money, it's robbery.' And, 'If you go into a man's home and merely because he's supposed to owe you some money, you take money from him at gunpoint, you have robbed him.' Again objecting to further argument by the prosecutor that a robbery was committed even if defendant believed Anderson owed him money, defendant suggested that a necessary element of theft, the intent to steal, was requisite to robbery, but was overruled by the court.

Defendant's objection was well taken. 'Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by Although an intent to steal may ordinarily be inferred when one person takes the property of another, particularly if he takes it by force, proof of the existence of a state of mind incompatible with an intent to steal precludes a finding of either theft or robbery. It has long been the rule in this state and generally throughout the country that a bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a right or claim to the property negates felonious intent. (People v. Eastman, 77 Cal. 171, 172, 19 P. 266. See also Note 46 A.L.R.2d 1227; People v. Gallegos, 130 Colo. 232, 274 P.2d 608, 46 A.L.R.2d 1224; Barton v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 227 S.W. 317, 13 A.L.R. 147 and cases noted therein.) A belief that the property taken belongs to the taker (People v. Devine, 95 Cal. 227, 230--231, 30 P. 378; People v. Vice, 21 Cal. 344), or that he had a right to retake goods sold (People v. Sheasbey, 82 Cal.App. 459, 255 P. 836) is sufficient to preclude felonious intent. Felonious intent exists only if the actor intends to take the property of another without believing in good faith that he has a right or claim to it. (People v. Stone, 16 Cal. 369.) ²

[421 P.2d 706] means of force or fear.' (Pen.Code, § 211.) An essential element of robbery is the felonious intent or Animus furandi that accompanies the taking. (People v. Rosen, 11 Cal.2d 147, 149, 78 P.2d 727, 116 A.L.R. 991.) Since robbery is but larceny aggravated by the use of force or fear to accomplish the taking of property from the [65 Cal.2d 573] person or presence of the possessor (People v. Jones, 53 Cal. 58, 59), the felonious intent requisite to robbery is the same intent common to those offenses that, like larceny, are grouped in the Penal Code designation of 'theft.' ¹ The taking of property is not theft in the absence of an intent to steal (People v. Matlock, 51 Cal.2d 682, 336 P.2d 505, 71 A.L.R.2d 605), and a specific intent to steal, i.e., an intent to deprive an owner permanently of his property, is an essential element of robbery. (People v. Ford, 60 Cal.2d 772, 792, 36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892; People v. Morlock, 46 Cal.2d 141, 146, 292 P.2d 897; People v. Sanchez, 35 Cal.2d 522, 526, 219 P.2d 9.)

Defendant testified that in going to Anderson's home 'my sole intention was to try to get my money; and that was all.' The jury was properly instructed that if the intent to take the money from Anderson did not arise until after Anderson had been fatally wounded, the killing could not be murder in the perpetration of robbery. (People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384, 388--389, 260 P.2d 16; People v. Kerr, 37 Cal.2d 11, 14, 229 P.2d 777; People v. Hardy, 33 Cal.2d 52, 59, 198 P.2d 865; People v. Sanchez, 30 Cal.2d 560, 569, 184 P.2d 673.) Since the jury returned a verdict of first degree murder it believed defendant intended to take money from Anderson by force before the shooting occurred. Accordingly, defendant's only defense to robbery-murder was the existence of an honest belief that he was entitled to the money. The trial court's approval of the prosecutor's argument that no such defense exists removed completely from the consideration of the jury a material issue Since the question may arise again on retrial, we deem it advisable to consider defendant's contention that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to exceed the proper scope of cross-examination and to comment on defendant's failure to bring before the jury on direct examination evidence that the prosecutor elicited in that cross-examination.

[421 P.2d 707] raised by credible, substantial evidence. It precluded any finding that an intent to steal was absent. Defendant has a constitutional right to have every significant issue determined by a jury. The denial of that right was a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of ARTICLE VI, SECTION 13 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION^* and requires reversal. (People v. Conley, 64 A.C. 321, 330, 49 Cal.Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911; People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal.2d 690, 704, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d 722, 730, 31 Cal.Rptr. 225, 382 P.2d 33.)

At the penalty phase of the trial defendant testified about his family and background. He described his education, his childhood, his church affiliation and the occupations of his parents and brother. He admitted a prior felony conviction for burglary in Louisiana resulting in a five-year penitentiary term. He told of a common law relationship through which he had become the father of a then six-year-old daughter, of his vocational training, and of his activities since his release from the penitentiary three months before the killing. On cross-examination, over the objection of defendant, the prosecutor questioned him regarding an incident that had occurred while he was imprisoned. Defendant testified that he had been involved in a fight and that another man had been killed. He contends that this questioning exceeded the...