People v. Clark

Decision Date30 July 1992
Docket NumberNo. S004494,S004494
Citation10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554,833 P.2d 561,3 Cal.4th 41
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 833 P.2d 561 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Douglas Daniel CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.

Harvey R. Zall and Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defenders, under appointments by the Supreme Court, Donald L.A. Kerson, Larry Pizarro and Verna Wefald, Deputy State Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Steve White and George Williamson, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., John R. Gorey, Ivy K. Kessel, Susan Lee Frierson and Robert S. Henry, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ARABIAN, Justice.

Defendant Douglas Daniel Clark appeals from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law. A jury found him guilty of six counts of first degree murder. (Pen.Code, § 187.) 1 Multiple murder special circumstances and enhancements for personal use of a firearm were found true as to each of the murder charges. (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 12022.5.) The jury further found defendant guilty of one count of mutilation of human remains, as to one of the murder victims (Health & Saf.Code, § 7052), and of attempted murder and mayhem as to a different victim. (§§ 187/664, 203.) Allegations that defendant had personally used a deadly weapon were found true as to the attempted murder and mayhem counts. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) An enhancement allegation for intentional infliction of great bodily injury was found true as to the attempted murder count. (§ 12022.7.)

The jury set the punishment at death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We conclude that the attempted murder and mayhem convictions must be reversed, and all but one of the multiple-murder special-circumstance findings must be set aside. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

I. GUILT PHASE FACTS

This case concerns the so-called Sunset Slasher or Sunset Slayer murders, a series of killings of young women which took place in the Los Angeles area between approximately May 31 and July 31, 1980.

Police investigation did not focus on defendant until August 11, 1980, when Carol Mary Bundy, defendant's housemate, confessed to the murder of Jack Murray, her sometime lover. In the course of her confession, Bundy accused defendant of the killings. Defendant in turn theorized that Bundy committed the killings with Jack Murray, and then killed Murray in a plot to frame defendant for the Sunset murders.

The evidence against defendant was largely circumstantial and painstakingly pieced together through extensive police investigation. (Bundy did not testify for the prosecution, but only when called by the defense.) The story is further complicated by a morass of procedural machinations relating to defendant's representation. Accordingly, the facts must be set forth in some detail.

A. THE PROSECUTION CASE
1. Murders of Gina Marano and Cynthia Chandler

The first murders the police discovered, and those about which the most detailed evidence existed, were the killings of Cynthia Chandler and Gina Marano.

a) Discovery of the Bodies

About 1:30 p.m. on June 12, 1980, police were called to the scene of a freeway ramp near the Forest Lawn cemetery, where a highway worker had found the bodies of two young girls. Cynthia Chandler, a blonde 16-year-old, was found with a pink jumpsuit wrapped around her legs. One leg of the jumpsuit was slit to the crotch. There was blood on the jumpsuit, and a spot of grease or oil. Chandler's half sister, Gina Marano, age 15, was clothed only in a red tube-top pulled down around her waist. No underwear was found on or anywhere near the bodies. In addition, police found no address book or business cards in the vicinity.

b) Coroner's Examination

Marano was killed by two gunshots to the head. Both bullets exited the skull. Chandler had been shot in both the head and the chest. The chest wound was a contact wound. Two .25-caliber bullets were recovered after the autopsy.

Marano and Chandler had been dead at least 12 hours at the time their bodies were recovered. They were probably killed sometime on June 11, or up to about 4 a.m. on June 12. The signs of lividity on Cynthia Chandler's body were consistent with the body having been moved from one location to another after her death. The Police criminalists testified that microscopic examination of vaginal material from Cynthia Chandler contained spermatozoa. Samples from Chandler's mouth were negative for spermatozoa or semen. No evidence of sexual assault on Gina Marano was found, but neither could sexual activity be ruled out. No bruising would occur as a result of post mortem sexual activity.

absence[833 P.2d 571] of puddles of blood where the bodies were found, and post mortem scratches and abrasions on Chandler's body, indicated that the victims had been killed elsewhere and the bodies later moved.

c) Chandler's and Marano's Movements

On June 1, 1980, Chandler and Marano attended a party given by Mark Gottesman, an attorney, at his Hollywood home. Many people were there, including a number of Gottesman's clients. Gottesman was unsure whether his business cards were handed out at the party. Mindy Cohen, a guest at the party, saw the two girls. She talked to Gina Marano and gave the girl her telephone number. Marano wrote the number in an address book she carried with her.

On the afternoon of June 10, 1980, Henry Brigges was driving a moving truck. He picked up two female hitchhikers. One of the girls, with blonde hair, gave her name as Cindy. The other girl had dark hair. Brigges gave the blonde girl his business card, bearing both his own telephone number and the number of his brother and sister-in-law, George and Laurie Brigges. He dropped the girls off at the entrance to a freeway onramp.

Angelo Marano, the father of Gina Marano and the stepfather of Cynthia Chandler, last saw them alive in early June 1980. Gina always carried her address book containing business cards and other information; it was very important to her.

d) The Telephone Calls
(1) Laurie Brigges

Laurie Brigges testified that between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on June 16, 1980, she received a telephone call at home from a man asking for her brother-in-law, Henry Brigges. The man identified himself as a police officer in the Hollywood division who was investigating the murder of two girls whose bodies were dumped near the freeway on June 12. The man said that one of the girls had her brother-in-law's business card. The "policeman" assured Laurie Brigges that her brother-in-law was not suspected in the killings, and that it was not necessary for Henry Brigges to contact the police. Laurie Brigges believed the man gave his name as Detective Clark. She thought the call was unusual because as the conversation proceeded, the caller became more casual and less police-like. For instance, the caller commented that the two girls had been "doing what they shouldn't"--that they were prostitutes.

Over defendant's objection, Laurie Brigges testified that she had identified defendant's voice for police from a tape recording they played for her. She also identified his voice in court as that of the caller.

(2) Mindy Cohen

Around 11:30 a.m., June 22, 1980, Mindy Cohen received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. The man stated he was inquiring into the murders of Chandler and Marano. He said that Gina had been shot in the head, and Cindy in the heart. When Cohen inquired how the police got her phone number, the man said it was found with the bodies.

Approximately one month later, on July 24, 1980, Cohen was awakened by a second telephone call at 7:11 a.m. Cohen immediately recognized the man's voice as the same one she had heard on June 22. The caller asked "if this was Mindy"; Cohen answered yes. He asked if she remembered that he had called previously about the murders of Gina and Cindy, and said, "Well, I killed them and now I want you." The man told Cohen he had shot Gina in the head and had to shoot Cindy in the heart. He said they were prostitutes and that he had paid Cindy $30 to "suck him off." He said, "I shot them and then I Cohen, like Brigges, identified defendant's voice from a tape recording. Cohen also told the police that the caller had used a two-syllable name. She was not sure of the name but thought she might remember it if she heard it. The officer suggested the name "Doug Clark." Cohen said that was the name. She was so positive about the name "Doug Clark" that the detective did not suggest any others. Cohen testified at trial that "Doug Clark" was the name the caller gave.

                [833 P.2d 572] made love to them and it felt so good.  It felt so good."   He said, "Now I want you, Mindy," and "You're next."   Cohen noticed that the caller's breathing changed in the course of the conversation.  That, coupled with the hesitation in his voice, led Cohen to believe that he was reaching a sexual climax.  Cohen became scared and hung up the phone.  She asked her father to call the police
                
(3) Telephone Records

The prosecutor introduced telephone company records for the telephone of Bretta Jo (Joey) Lamphier, one of defendant's girlfriends with whom he sometimes lived. The records for June 16, 1980, reflected three significant telephone calls: a call at 2:13 p.m., from Lamphier's residence to her place of employment; a call at 2:36 p.m. to the number assigned to Laurie Brigges; and a call at 2:40 p.m. to the office of Mark Gottesman. Lamphier testified that she did not make the calls. She was at work at that time. Rather, she testified, defendant telephoned her at work on that afternoon. Defendant told her he was at her apartment, and that he would be calling some movers to arrange to move some of his property from Lamphier's residence into a new apartment on Verdugo Street that defendan...

To continue reading

Request your trial
680 cases
  • People v. Faultry, A122829 (Cal. App. 12/21/2009), A122829
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2009
    ...Nor has it adopted a rigid rule that any Faretta motion made before the actual commencement of trial is deemed timely (People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 99). "We intend only that a defendant should not be allowed to misuse the Faretta mandate as a means to unjustifiably delay a scheduled......
  • People v. Gomez, S087773
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 29 Noviembre 2018
    ...usurp[ ] the duties of the prosecutor’ " and appear to be " ‘allying ... with the prosecution.’ " ( People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 43, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561 ( Clark ), quoting People v. Campbell (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 776, 787, 329 P.2d 82.) But in reviewing such claims, our......
  • People v. Edward, S057156
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 31 Mayo 2018
    ...754 P.2d 1070 ; People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 969–970, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214 ; and People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 120–122, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561.) These cases are, however, distinguishable: In each of these cases, a suspect who had waived his Miranda righ......
  • People v. Johnson, S029551
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 25 Noviembre 2019
    ...Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478 [ Faretta motion made on the date scheduled for trial deemed untimely], and People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 99-100, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561 [ Faretta motion made several days after case had been continued day to day "in the expectation that the mo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...9:130, 21:120, 22:110 Clark, People v. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 950, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 689, §§9:30, 17:100, 17:140 Clark, People v. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 41, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, §§9:150, 9:160, 12:70, 17:140 Clark, People v. (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 583, 268 Cal. Rptr. 399, §10:70 Clark, People v. (2021) 73......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...is unavailable, someone with knowledge of the usual customs and routines of the laboratory may be acceptable. People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 41, 158, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554. • To offer “new” scientific evidence, first show that it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...into how a record was done and the background of the preparer and his or her duties in regard to the report. People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 41, 158-159, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554. Computer printouts of records are admissible as trustworthy as with the business records exception. People v. Mar......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...• No valid invocation when a subject expresses a desire for an attorney at some point in the future. E.g., People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 121 (no valid invocation when D asked how long it would take to get attorney while stating he would like to talk in the interim but "would like to ......
  • 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