People v. Cartier

• Decision Date: 17 February 1959
• Citation: 335 P.2d 114,51 Cal.2d 590
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Raymond L. CARTIER, Appellant. Crim. 6273.

Page 114

335 P.2d 114

51 Cal.2d 590

PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Raymond L. CARTIER, Appellant.

Crim. 6273.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 17, 1959.

Robert K. Barber, San Francisco, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., James Don Keller, District Atty., and F. E. Gallagher, Deputy Dist. Atty., San Diego, for respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal from a judgment of guilty of murder in the first degree after trial before a jury. The jury fixed the punishment at death and found defendant to have been sane on the date of the commission of the offense.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the record discloses the following facts:

In November 1957 defendant, 29 years of age, resided with his wife, Geneva Cartier, in a single-story duplex dwelling in San Diego. Defendant and his wife had been married a few months before.

On November 11, 1957, defendant left work at approximately 3:45 p. m. and by prearrangement met his wife. They went to a bar, had a drink and made plans for Mrs. Cartier to leave her job about 7 o'clock that evening. Mrs. Cartier was then driven to her palce of employment, and defendant drove home, where he changed his clothes and cut a rug in half, as requested by his wife. While at home, defendant drank one 'mixed drink' and half of a second. When he had drunk about half of the second one, he added some wine to it. This drink he also consumed.

About 5:30 defendant left home and drove to a bar, where he had a few beers. At approximately 7 p. m. he met his wife at her place of employment. They immediately went to a nearby bar for a drink, but before doing so each of them drank from a bottle which defendant had brought with him. After having one drink at the bar, they left and proceeded to another bar. Between the two bars they drank the rest of the contents of the bottle which defendant had. At this time defendant felt exceedingly happy and gave his wife the keys to their automobile. At the second bar they had two drinks, played shuffleboard, and left about 8:15 to go to another bar, the Java Club.

They arrived at the Java Club between 9 and 10 p. m. They took seats at the end of the bar and invited a waitress to have a drink with them. She accepted the offer and sat with them at the bar for approximately 45 minutes. Defendant left his wife and the waitress and went to the rest room. During his absence a sailor came into the bar with a ring which he was trying to pledge. The waitress and defendant's wife called the sailor over to show them the ring, struck a match to see it better, and in the process held the sailor's hand. Defendant was standing behind his wife while she and the waitress were looking at the ring on the sailor's finger, and defendant became very angry and violent because they were talking with the sailor. He told the sailor that if he did not take his hands off his (defendant's) wife, he would 'knock his block off.' Defendant's wife then tried to humor defendant back into a happy state. Thereafter defendant got into an argument with the bartender about the latter's refusal to cash a check for him. He then went to the rest room again, and upon his return suggested that he and his wife go home, and the two walked out of the bar with their arms around each other.

Mr. Martinez, who lived with his wife and child in the other dwelling unit in the duplex occupied by the Cartiers, stated that on the evening in question he had gone to bed about 7 or 7:30 and was later awakened by the sound of violent quarreling coming from the Cartier residence. The quarreling lasted for about 15 minutes, during which time he heard a 'scuffling' noise 'like furniture being moved,' and then he heard defendant's wife say, 'Please, please, don't!' Thereafter he heard three or four thuds on the wall or floor, after which everything became silent and he went back to sleep.

Mr. Martinez was awakened later by a neighbor's calling 'Fire!' Thereupon he arose, dressed, and went outside to the front of the Cartiers' part of the duplex. There he saw defendant standing on his front porch with the front door closed behind him. Defendant was facing away from the front door and was motionless. Mr. Martinez asked defendant if Mrs. Cartier was inside, and defendant replied: 'I think so. I don't know.' Mr. Martinez then tried to open the front door. Finding it locked, he forced it open by kicking it. He then entered the house and found it filled with smoke and the heat quite intense. He then came out of the house and walked around to the back porch of the house, but found too much smoke there to enter. He returned to the front of the house and stood with defendant beside a car. Defendant suddenly ran into the Martinez side of the duplex. Mr. Martinez followed him and found defendant in the kitchen trying to knock down the kitchen wall with a chair. The kitchen wall was opposite the bedroom in the Cartier side of the duplex. When asked what he was doing, defendant replied that his wife was in there and that he loved her.

It was about 11:30 p. m. when the neighbor had noticed the fire. Shortly thereafter members of the fire department arrived and extinguished the fire, and the body of defendant's wife was found on the floor of the bedroom. It was lying face upward, with the head near the foot of the bed, and was covered with considerable debris, which appeared to have been bedclothes and a foam rubber mattress. Also discovered near the body were a butcher knife, a French chef's knife, and several pieces of heavy glass similar to a heavy glass ash tray. In a corner of the bedroom was found a meat cleaver. A paring knife was found on the floor beneath the shoulders of the body.

An autopsy disclosed that the body was charred over nearly the entire skin surface. Both bones of the lower right arm were fractured at a point approximately one inch below the wrist joint, and the bone fragments protruded through the flesh. A large wound extended from the collar bone on the left downward and across the midline to and including the vagina. The would was jagged and extended through the skin, underlying fat and muscle tissue. The cartilages of the second through the tenth ribs on the left side had been separated, and the heart had been severed from the major vessels connecting to it and removed from the body. The vagina had likewise been cut out from the surrounding tissue. On the head there was a depressed fracture, oval in shape, approximately one and a half centimeters in diameter, at a point a little above the ear. An examination of the tracheobronchial tree revealed no evidence of smoke inhalation. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the death of defendant's wife was caused by the cutting out of her heart.

Two experts testified that they had inspected the Cartier home after the fire, that the area of greatest burning was located in the bedroom area at a point near the foot of the bed, where the body was found; and that the fire started at that point near the floor below the level of the bottom of the bed. They further testified that the fire was of deliberate incendiary origin.

These are the questions necessary for us to determine:

First. Did the trial court err in refusing to permit defendant to hear recordings of his conversations with the police officers subsequent to his arrest, which conversations he claimed he did not remember?

Yes. In a criminal case an accused is entitled to hear recordings of his conversations with police officers where he has forgotten what he said at the time he was examined and alleges that the recordings are necessary to refresh his recolletion. (Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773; Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 705 et seq., 312 P.2d 698; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 587(29), 305 P.2d 1.)

In the present case, after defendant was arrested by the San Diego police, he was interrogated by Sgt. DeVore and various other public officials in a room in the jail. The conversations were recorded by means of a hidden microphone and lasted for a period of an hour and 45 minutes. Later the same day, November 12, 1957, defendant was further interrogated by Sgt. DeVore and other police officers. This later conversation was recorded in the same manner as the first conversation and lasted for about 20 minutes. Defendant was also interrogated by Dr. Meyers on the same day.

During the trial defendant moved for an order to permit him to inspect the transcriptions of these conversations. After a considerable colloquy the trial judge granted the prosecution 48 hours in which to prepare counter-affidavits and announced that before ruling on the motion he would require that defendant waive his constitutional right not to testify and also require that defendant be examined under oath outside the presence of the jury on the validity of the allegation in his affidavit that he was unable to recall the contents of the various recorded conversations. ^*

Defendant filed a written motion for the inspection of the foregoing recordings, together with affidavits of himself and his counsel. Defendant's affidavit alleged that he had been interrogated by police offcers and by Dr. Meyers at various times on November 12, 1957; that he belived certain of those conversations had been recorded and transcribed; that one of the conversations lasted in excess of 45 minutes; that each of the others lasted in excess of one hour; that he was unable to recall or relate to his attorney the things contained in the statements; that such recordings were necessary to refresh his recollection; and that no copies had been furnished to him.

The affidavit of defendant's counsel alleged that he had reason to believe that the prosecution would 'use these conversation at the forthcoming trial' and that 'the statements, conversations and documents are necessary to the defense of Raymond Cartier;...