People v. Caudillo, Cr. 19805

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtBIRD; BIRD; RICHARDSON; CLARK
Citation21 Cal.3d 562,146 Cal.Rptr. 859
Parties, 580 P.2d 274 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel CAUDILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberCr. 19805
Decision Date23 June 1978

Page 859

146 Cal.Rptr. 859
21 Cal.3d 562, 580 P.2d 274
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Daniel CAUDILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 19805.
Supreme Court of California,In Bank.
June 23, 1978.

[21 Cal.3d 566]

Page 860

[580 P.2d 275] F. Elaine Easley, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender (Los Angeles), Harold E. Shabo and G. Keith Wisot, Deputy Public Defenders, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Pounders and Michael Nash, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

John K. Van de Kamp, Dist. Atty. (Los Angeles), Harry B. Sondheim, Donald J. Kaplan and Eugene D. Tavris, Deputy Dist. Attys., as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.

JEFFERSON, * Justice.

As charged in a six-count information, a jury found defendant Daniel Caudillo guilty

Page 861

of the crimes of kidnaping (Pen.Code, § 207), forcible rape (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. 2), sodomy (Pen.Code, § 286), oral copulation (Pen.Code, § 288a), first degree robbery (Pen.Code, § 211), and first degree burglary (Pen.Code, § 459). The jury also found that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife, during the commission of each of these offenses (Pen.Code, § 12022). In finding defendant guilty of first degree burglary the jury also found (pursuant to Pen.Code, § 461) that in the course of the commission of this offense, defendant, with the intent to do so, inflicted [21 Cal.3d 567] great bodily injury upon Maria the victim of each of the offenses charged against defendant. 1

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for each offense. The sentences for kidnaping, robbery, rape, sodomy and oral copulation were ordered to run concurrently with the burglary sentence. With the exception of the burglary sentence, all the sentences were stayed, pending determination of any appeal as to the burglary conviction, the stays to become permanent upon completion of service of the burglary term.

Defendant appeals from the judgment. His contentions all relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment and findings. He first claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of any offense, a claim patently without merit. He also contends, and we agree, that the evidence adduced below of the movement of the victim was not of sufficient proportions to support the kidnaping conviction. Defendant makes a third contention, with which we agree that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that, in the course of commission of the burglary, with intent to do so, he inflicted great bodily injury upon Maria, the occupant of the burglarized premises. We modify the judgment accordingly.

Due to the nature of the issues raised on this appeal, we set forth in some detail the evidence adduced below.

On May 2, 1975, Maria was sharing with Catherine a second-floor apartment in a large apartment complex in Montebello. Early in the morning on this date, after Catherine had left the apartment to go to work, Maria took the elevator to the subterranean garage where her car was parked. There she discovered that a tire on her vehicle was flat; she returned to the elevator intending to go to her apartment and summon help.

As she reached the second floor, the elevator stopped and the door opened. A man, later identified by Maria as defendant, jumped into the elevator and pushed her against the elevator wall, covering her mouth with one hand and pressing a carving knife to her throat. Maria was [21 Cal.3d 568] wearing glasses; she had an opportunity to observe defendant for 10 or 20 seconds, and recognized him as a person she had seen before around the apartment complex.

Defendant immediately asked Maria if she had seen him. He cautioned her to be very quiet and, when the elevator door opened again, took her to a small windowless storage room beside the elevator on the second floor. The storage room was located between the elevator and Maria's apartment. Defendant was holding the knife so close to Maria's throat that she sustained a slight cut to her throat. Maria tried to pull the knife away from her throat and, in the process, cut two of her fingers. At one point, defendant held the knife to the back of Maria's neck causing a laceration to her neck.

Defendant again asked Maria if she had seen him. In fear of further injury, Maria assured defendant that she had not, although she remembered seeing him on [580 P.2d 277] April 13, 1975, at the apartment house pool; defendant had stared at her on that occasion, and had offered her his pool chair. Sometime later she had seen him in the apartment complex parking lot, working on an automobile.

Page 862

While they were in the storage room, defendant removed Maria's glasses and never returned them. He asked her if anyone was in her apartment; she said no. Defendant told her that as soon as everyone had left for work he would take her there. While they waited, defendant ordered Maria to raise her dress; she did so, reluctantly, and defendant rubbed his hands against her backside. He also asked Maria how much money she had.

Maria testified that defendant kept her in the storage room for approximately 20 minutes. Then, pressing the knife in Maria's back, defendant moved her down the hall from the storage room to her apartment, 2 where Maria was compelled to open the door. She was pushed inside and blindfolded. After taking her to the bedrooms, defendant led her to the living room, where Maria heard him unzip his pants. He ordered her to undress. Defendant allowed Maria to keep on her panties, pantyhose and shoes; he directed her to "(t)urn around slowly." Then defendant, seated on the living room sofa, pulled Maria toward him, pushed her to her knees and inserted his penis in Maria's [21 Cal.3d 569] mouth. Maria gagged; she felt like vomiting. Then he ordered her to completely undress.

Defendant compelled Maria to stand, and inserted his fingers in her vagina. He asked her if she could get pregnant; she said she did not think so. Defendant then raped the victim.

Defendant asked Maria if she had a boyfriend. He said: "You better not lie to me. I know everything about you. I know what time you leave for work and I know what time you get home. I have seen you from afar and I have admired you for a long time." Maria stated that she had a boyfriend. Defendant wanted to know if Maria and her boyfriend engaged in sexual activity; Maria did not answer.

Defendant then inserted his penis in Maria's rectum. Maria pulled away, telling defendant she was going to be sick. Maria had diarrhea, and evacuated her bowels twice. Defendant kept insisting that Maria satisfy him.

Defendant again forced Maria to orally copulate him; she gagged and spit. He returned to the theme of whether or not she had recognized him; she continued to tell him she had not.

Defendant raped Maria for the second time, but could not ejaculate. He again forced her to orally copulate him, and ejaculated in Maria's mouth; Maria gagged, spit and vomited. Still not content, defendant again inserted his penis in Maria's mouth, wiping away his victim's vomit.

Finally, defendant pushed Maria to the center of Catherine's bed; Maria was still blindfolded, although loosely. He left the bedroom, returning several times to bring Maria her clothes, purse and wallet. He threw the wallet at her, and ordered her to sit up. Through the blindfold, she examined the wallet; money was missing. Defendant demanded more money, and Maria found more in the wallet, which she gave him. Defendant took it, saying "I'll owe it to you." He told her not to report his sexual attack upon her to anyone. "If you do report it to anyone it will be embarrassing for you only," said defendant. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Thereupon defendant departed, taking $60 of Maria's money with him.

Maria lay on the bed for about 30 minutes, with the blindfold still over her eyes. She was afraid to get up. She finally did so, and searched the [21 Cal.3d 570] apartment room by room, making certain that defendant was gone. It was now 10:45 a. m. Maria called her boyfriend, Robert, and he arrived at the apartment about 11 a. m. She told him what had happened; it took him an hour to calm her down. Robert called the police.

[580 P.2d 278] Detective Carranza arrived and interviewed Maria. He showed her some mugshots, but defendant's picture was not among them. Later, Maria was able to identify defendant from looking at another group of photographs which included that

Page 863

of defendant. Maria's roommate, Catherine, also selected defendant's picture as the person who had approached Maria at the apartment house pool on April 13, 1975.

Dr. J. Richard Marshall testified that on the late afternoon of May 2, 1975, he was employed at the emergency care center at Beverly Hospital, Montebello, and examined Maria there. She was very upset, was weeping and agitated. He found what he described as two superficial knife cuts on Maria's neck, cuts which did not require suturing. He also found no visible injury, laceration or hematoma of the sexual organs or of the anus. Dr. Marshall took a slide which, after being analyzed, revealed that semen had been present in the victim's vaginal vault. He prescribed a mild tranquilizer, and Maria was discharged.

Defendant's defense was an alibi. He admitted visiting the victim's apartment building to see friends, but claimed that the charges against him were the result of Maria's mistaken identification.

I

Sufficiency of the Evidence To Identify Defendant as the Perpetrator of the Charged Offenses

Defendant attacks the sufficiency of Maria's testimony to identify him as the perpetrator of the various offenses committed against her, claiming that her powers of observation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 practice notes
  • Alejandrez v. Hedgpeth, Case No.: 1:12-cv-00190-AWI-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 10, 2014
    ...injury, not a minor or moderate one.Alejandrez cites People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735-736 and People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 588-589, overruled on other grounds by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237, footnote 6, in which evidence of superficial lacerati......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1984
    ...hands. Appellant testified he used "switches" pulled from a tree in the yard when disciplining the children. In People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274, the Supreme Court opined that "by defining rape in categories in which one category is accomplished by th......
  • People v. Foley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 6, 1985
    ...harm" is not the same as "unlawful bodily injury;" the former implies a greater degree of bodily harm. (See People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 586-587, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274; People v. Holt (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 727, 732-734, 209 Cal.Rptr. 643.) Consequently, the 1980 amendm......
  • People v. Jones, No. B122692.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1999
    ...or that the victim might attempt to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom by (defendant)']; cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 574 [146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274] ... [aggravated kidnapping includes review of such factors as `the defendant's motivation to escape dete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
272 cases
  • Alejandrez v. Hedgpeth, Case No.: 1:12-cv-00190-AWI-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 10, 2014
    ...injury, not a minor or moderate one.Alejandrez cites People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735-736 and People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 588-589, overruled on other grounds by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237, footnote 6, in which evidence of superficial lacerati......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1984
    ...hands. Appellant testified he used "switches" pulled from a tree in the yard when disciplining the children. In People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274, the Supreme Court opined that "by defining rape in categories in which one category is accomplished by th......
  • People v. Foley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 6, 1985
    ...harm" is not the same as "unlawful bodily injury;" the former implies a greater degree of bodily harm. (See People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 586-587, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274; People v. Holt (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 727, 732-734, 209 Cal.Rptr. 643.) Consequently, the 1980 amendm......
  • People v. Jones, No. B122692.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1999
    ...or that the victim might attempt to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom by (defendant)']; cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 574 [146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274] ... [aggravated kidnapping includes review of such factors as `the defendant's motivation to escape dete......
  • 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