People v. Catlin

Decision Date16 July 2001
Docket NumberNo. S016718.,S016718.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven David CATLIN, Defendant and Appellant.

Horace N. Freedman, Culver City, and Jeffrey Schwartz, Indio, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Shirley A. Nelson and Stephen G. Herndon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

On December 23, 1985, in an information filed in Kern County, defendant was charged with the 1976 murder of Joyce Catlin, his fourth wife (Pen.Code, § 187)1 and the 1984 murder of Martha Catlin, his mother. (§ 187.) It was alleged that the murder of Martha Catlin was committed for financial gain (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1)), that the murder was intentionally committed by the administration of poison (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(19)), and that defendant was convicted of more than one offense of murder in the present proceeding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The information originally included a torture-murder allegation, which later was dismissed. On September 7, 1988, the information was amended to include an allegation that defendant previously had been convicted of the 1984 first degree murder of Glenna Kaye Catlin, his fifth wife. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2).)

On June 1, 1990, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both murder counts and found true the murder for financial gain, murder by poison, and multiple murder allegations. Thereafter defendant admitted the truth of the prior-murder-conviction special-circumstance allegation.

On June 6, 1990, the jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. (§§ 190.4, 1239, subd. (b).)

I. FACTS
A. Guilt phase evidence
1. The murder of Joyce Catlin

Joyce Catlin, defendant's fourth wife, died in Bakersfield on May 6, 1976. She had developed what appeared to be flu-like symptoms about three weeks before her death and, upon consulting a physician, was admitted to a hospital. Before admission, she complained of back pain, vomiting, and a sore throat. She was transferred to the hospital's intensive care unit the day after her admission. Her lungs appeared to be affected. Dr. Einstein, a lung specialist, treated her without success for possible viral or bacterial infection. She did not respond to various antibiotic medications. Her lungs failed to oxygenate her body sufficiently, and she required mechanical ventilation. Nineteen days after admission to the hospital, her lungs failed entirely and she died.

An autopsy disclosed gross pulmonary fibrosis. Pathologist Dr. Bruce Swinyer, who performed the autopsy, testified that Joyce's lungs were extremely heavy and fibrotic and that there was no indication of viral or bacterial infection that could have caused death. The death certificate listed the cause of death as acute respiratory failure due to unknown microorganisms, but attending physicians suspected poisoning by paraquat, a highly toxic poison used in agriculture to control weeds. (Although several witnesses referred generally during the course of the proceedings to paraquat as a pesticide, technically it is an herbicide.)

Dr. Einstein testified that the cause of death was pulmonary fibrosis. In this condition, the lungs develop massive scarring and are unable to function to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. He could not identify any natural cause of this condition. He testified that in 1976, toxicological tests that could disclose the presence of paraquat more than 72 hours after administration did not exist. Tissue collected during the autopsy was preserved in formalin, which precluded later testing for the presence of paraquat. At trial, Dr. Einstein stated his opinion that Joyce died of paraquat poisoning, based in part on the opinion of Dr. Kilburn, a lung pathologist, and in part on the absence of any natural agent that could have caused her death. He also relied upon the clinical course of Joyce's symptoms and the appearance of her lungs after death.

Dr. Kilburn, a professor of medicine and expert in lung pathology, examined tissue samples sent to him in 1976 by Dr. Swinyer. He testified that Joyce's lung tissue almost was destroyed by fibrosis, that the fibrosis was caused by a chemical, and that the only chemical that could produce such fibrosis was paraquat. He explained that it could take up to 30 days or as little as 12 hours for paraquat to cause death, depending upon the dose. When he showed the slides to a visiting professor who was an expert in paraquat poisoning, the latter said that they constituted a perfect example of paraquat poisoning.

Dr. Ford, a clinical toxicologist employed by the Chevron Environmental Health Center, explained that paraquat poisoning progressed in typical stages. Initially, the patient experiences a burning sensation in the mouth, and then after about 12 hours develops symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. These symptoms may persist for a few days, but by the seventh day after ingestion the patient may feel somewhat better. Some kidney impairment may follow, but normally is resolved after 14 days. The lungs become affected about a week after ingestion, and by the third week they typically are so fibrotic that they cannot function. He noted that consistently with these typical stages, Joyce experienced vomiting and other gastrological symptoms for about seven days, then developed some kidney dysfunction. As that resolved, she complained of shortness of breath and X-rays disclosed some marking of the lungs and edema. Her lungs continued to deteriorate, and the autopsy disclosed a fibrotic condition typical of paraquat poisoning.

Dr. Stephens, then the Chief Medical Examiner of the City and County of San Francisco, reviewed Joyce's medical records and slides of her tissues. He also found the course of Joyce's symptoms consistent with paraquat poisoning, and testified that he believed she died of such poisoning.

In sum, these medical and toxicological experts gave their opinions at trial that the cause of Joyce's death was paraquat poisoning, relying in large part upon her distinctive clinical symptoms and upon tissue analysis.

The prosecution did not introduce direct evidence regarding the manner in which paraquat was administered to Joyce. There was evidence that shortly before she became ill, Joyce and defendant attended a party where she showed signs of intoxication, and that shortly thereafter she developed severe gastric symptoms, including violent vomiting. There also was evidence that shortly after her hospitalization, defendant supplied Joyce with a milkshake. The following evidence related to defendant's potential motive for killing Joyce. Joyce had credit life insurance, which was used to pay off a $6,741 debt on an automobile, as well as an insurance policy paying up to $2,000 and a $5,000 life insurance policy, the benefits of which were paid to defendant. When Joyce was in the hospital, defendant said to her sister that he thought the credit life insurance covered both the couple's house and their automobile. There also was evidence that defendant had engaged in extramarital affairs while married to Joyce, and that the couple had argued over a girlfriend of his.

Edith Ballew, who had been defendant's third wife, testified that she and others suspected shortly after Joyce's death that defendant was responsible for it.

There was evidence that access to paraquat was controlled under state law, but that defendant had access to it in 1976 and 1977 when he worked as a mechanic for a large agricultural enterprise. Several witnesses recounted defendant's statements— some statements from 20 years before trial—indicating his belief that paraquat was an effective herbicide that was extremely dangerous to human beings, that he was aware of the effect of paraquat on the lungs, that he possessed agricultural poisons he had acquired at work, and that he had shown the father of his second wife a container of a poison he said would kill anything or anybody, a poison that he believed to be ideal for use in a murder because it could not be detected and because there was no antidote. In 1975, defendant cautioned Joyce's son not to enter his garage, which contained dangerous agricultural poisons, and warned the boy regarding the danger of contact with paraquat.

2. The murder of Martha Catlin

Martha Catlin, defendant's 79-year-old mother, died in Bakersfield on December 8, 1984, after an illness lasting two or three days.

In 1982, Martha had a mild stroke. At that time, Edith Ballew contacted Martha's physician, Dr. Sproule, and suggested that Martha had been poisoned with paraquat. Dr. Sproule reported finding no sign of poisoning.

In September 1984, Martha again visited Dr. Sproule. She had not been taking her medication for hypertension, and her blood pressure was high. When she returned to the physician on October 31, 1984, she complained of poor memory and reported poor eating habits. Against medical advice, she had been drinking wine. Dr. Sproule prescribed a cough syrup with codeine at that time.

Edith Ballew visited Martha on Thursday, November 29, 1984, when Martha appeared in her usual state of health. On Thursday, December 6, 1984, however, Martha telephoned her friend Anna Stonebraker to request assistance because of a serious illness. Mrs. Stonebraker testified that Martha appeared very ill, exhibiting swollen purple lips and mouth as well as dark circles under her eyes. When Martha presented herself at Dr. Sproule's office, she had a reddish purple tongue and throat and had a temperature of 102 degrees. Dr. Sproule treated her with penicillin and asked her to return the next day. Mrs. Stonebraker was unable to care for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1447 cases
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 avril 2007
    ...such an act.'" (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 202; see also People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 822-823; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 111; People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 561; People v. Branch (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 274, 280; People v. Van Winkle (1999) 75 Cal.A......
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 juin 2009
    ...culpable mental state may be considered as a circumstance of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a). (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 175, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357.) Even when the verdict is based upon a felony-murder theory, it is appropriate to consider any apparent preme......
  • People v. Superior Court of Mendocino Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 7 novembre 2019
    ...value. (See People v. Dean (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 186, 197, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 478 ( Dean ), citing People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 137, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357 ( Catlin ).) In Dean , experts at an SVP trial were permitted to relate secondhand details from the defendant's state h......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 1 février 2021
    ...209, 160 P.3d 84 ; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 135–137, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988 ; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 119, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357 ; People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1156, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315 ; Wheeler , supra , 22 Cal.3d a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 mars 2022
    ...668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 ( Dowling ); Santamaria , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 922, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 124, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357 ( Catlin ); see United States v. Wells (8th Cir. 2004) 347 F.3d 280, 285 [“A fact previously determined in......
  • All physical evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 mars 2023
    ...has the burden of showing the court that it is reasonably certain that the evidence has not been altered. People v. Caitlin (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 81, 134, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31. The party offering the evidence is not required to negate all possibility of tampering. People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 mars 2023
    ...of membership in a cognizable group violates both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 81, 116, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31. Striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose is forbidden. Flowers v. Mississippi (20......
  • Privileges and public policy exclusions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 mars 2023
    ...of the privilege is to preserve marital harmony, and if a spouse is a victim, that protection is not needed. People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 81, 130-131, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31. The marital privilege only applies to a valid marriage and not to a second marriage entered into before a spous......
  • 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