People v. Cooley

• Decision Date: 20 December 1962
• Docket Number: Cr. 36
• Citation: 27 Cal.Rptr. 543,211 Cal.App.2d 173
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donnell COOLEY, a/k/a Spade Cooley, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 543

27 Cal.Rptr. 543

211 Cal.App.2d 173

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donnell COOLEY, a/k/a Spade Cooley, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 36.

District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Dec. 20, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1963.

Hearing Denied Feb. 13, 1963.

P. Basil Lambros, Beverly Hills, Samuel Z. Winnikoff, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Barry L. Bunshoft, Deputy Attys. Gen., Kit L. Nelson, District Atty. of Kern County, for respondent.

CONLEY, Presiding Justice.

The defendant, Donnell Cooley, known as Spade Cooley in the amusement world, was We shall be as concise as reasonably possible in stating the significant facts shown in the more than 2,750 pages of the reporter's transcript. In this connection we must keep in mind the rule applicable to appellate courts in the review of a criminal record on appeal.

convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree for the killing of his wife, Ella Mae. Thereafter, he withdrew his additional plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and waived a jury with respect to fixing the penalty for his crime. The trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. There was no motion for a new trial. A notice of appeal was filed in due course.

The Supreme Court states in People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778, 779:

'The rule applicable where there is evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that a crime has been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator thereof, has been many times reiterated by the reviewing courts of this state as follows: The court on appeal 'will not attempt to determine the weight of the evidence, but will decide only whether upon the face of the evidence it can be held that sufficient facts could not have been found by the jury to warrant the inference of guilt. For it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before the verdict of the jury, which has been approved by the trial court, can be set aside on appeal upon the ground' of insufficiency of the evidence, 'it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below. * * * We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict.' If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.'

(See also People v. Osslo, 50 Cal.2d 75, 84-85, 323 P.2d 397; People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885, 256 P.2d 911; People v. Reed, 38 Cal.2d 423, 240 P.2d 590; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 234 P.2d 1; People v. Jones, 36 Cal.2d 373, 224 P.2d 353; People v. Robillard, 55 Cal.2d 88, 93, 10 Cal.Rptr. 167, 358 P.2d 295; People v. Wein, 50 Cal.2d 383, 398, 326 P.2d 457; People v. Eggers, 30 Cal.2d 676, 185 P.2d 1; People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502, 510, 66 P.2d 631; People v. Tom Woo, 181 Cal. 315, 326, 184 P. 389; People v. Stephens, 66 Cal.App.2d 755, 152 P.2d 1019; People v. Wright, 94 Cal.App.2d 70, 210 P.2d 263.)

In view of the foregoing rule, it is inevitable in reviewing the long record that we examine with more particularity the evidence of the People tending to show the guilt of the defendant rather than the proof supporting his theory of innocence.

THE EVIDENCE

The appellant, Spade Cooley, 'the King of Western Swing,' had been a well-known bandleader, musician and television actor. He first met Ella Mae Cooley in 1943, when he hired her to sing with his band; in 1945 they married, after he divorced his first wife.

In the year 1946, just before the birth of their first child, Melody (who was an eye-witness against her father upon the trial), the victim believed that she had discovered the appellant with another woman in their home; when she proceeded to pack her belongings with the intention of moving to her sister's home, he warned her that if she did leave him he would find her and kill her. In the year 1950, at the home of her sister, the appellant twisted her arm behind her while she screamed, 'Don't let him take me, don't let him take me'; at that time Sometime later, on a cruise to Catalina Island, the appellant struck his wife and forced her to kneel and apologize to their guests for something which had met with disfavor on his part. The record shows that during their life together the appellant had inflicted numerous beatings upon her and that on one occasion when he started to choke her she was forced to jump from an automobile. The appellant's daughter, Melody, testified that she had witnessed the appellant 'slap around' her mother and threaten to kill her on numerous occasions and that he had often beaten her. On at least five occasions beatings were witnessed by a nurse and domestic-companion, and in one instance the nurse was forced to strike appellant with a eucalyptus log in order to stop him from continuing the assault. In February of 1961, Ella Mae stated that she was being kept a prisoner by her husband and that she was afraid of him, as he had threatened to kill both her and the children.

when her brother-in-law attempted to intervene, the appellant struck him.

In the early part of 1961 Mrs. Cooley was hospitalized; she had been under a severe strain and was quite nervous; while hospitalized she expressed fear of her husband to her doctor on several occasions. During this period she retained a woman attorney to commence divorce proceedings; she told her attorney that her husband had often beaten her and that his physical abuse was growing worse; she said that she was in fear for her life, as appellant had told her he was going to kill her if she attempted to leave him and that he would kill their children if she tried to take them with her; the victim said she was afraid to return home; she said that she wanted no property but would be satisfied to get out with her life.

At about the same time Ella Mae began sending small increments of money to 'Bud' Davenport and Luther Jackson with the understanding, they said, that the money would be invested in stock in their names in secret trust for her use after she obtained a divorce. While she was in the hospital in March the appellant telephoned and told one of the nurses that he was coming to visit his wife; when a nurse's aide relayed the message to her she became hysterical and begged for a place to hide, and after the aide left the room, she locked herself inside the bathroom and refused to come out again until the nurse's aide identified herself and said that Cooley was not there.

Mrs. Cooley had telephone conversations with Davenport and Jackson while she was in the hospital, during which she told them she feared for her life because of the numerous beatings inflicted upon her and the threats made by the appellant. On March 11, 1961, while Davenport and the victim were conversing by telephone the appellant tried for a period of 45 minutes to reach her, and when he later questioned her about her protracted conversation and told her falsely that he had monitored the call, the victim replied, 'So what, now you know.' Appellant assumed that the victim was carrying on an illicit affair with Davenport, and he informed a business associate, Jerry Enfield, that Ella Mae had been having sexual relations with Davenport. Davenport and Jackson were living together and had visited the ranch on a number of occasions. Each of them denied on the witness stand that Mrs. Cooley had ever had sexual relations with either.

However, the appellant assumed, notwithstanding his belief that the two men were homosexuals, that she had been conducting an affair with Davenport, and the appellant then telephoned him shortly afterwards at one o'clock in the morning and told him that he was coming to 'beat his teeth in' and to kill him. He did visit Davenport and Jackson at 3 a. m., accompanied by two friends and business associates, Jerry Enfield and Beal Whitlock. At that time appellant accused Davenport and Jackson of being homosexuals and falsely told them that he had tape recordings of all of Davenport's telephone calls to his wife. He then struck Davenport on the chin and told him that if he did not get out of the state he would kill both him and Ella Mae.

On March 13th the appellant confided to a friend of the family, the nurse Dorothy Davis, that his wife was leaving him for another man.

On the 21st day of March, 1961, appellant filed a divorce case, charging extreme cruelty. Two days later he requested an escrow officer of a bank to come to his home to notarize certain quitclaim deeds. Before this person arrived, the appellant beat his wife severely, and that night the victim signed four deeds which transferred the property upon which they lived from joint tenancy to appellant's sole ownership. Each of these parcels of land was said to be worth $80,000, but each was heavily encumbered. Ella Mae was also induced to sign several deeds in blank.

On March 24th appellant telephoned to Anita Aros, who had been a violinist in his band, telling her that he was divorcing his wife and asking her to marry him as soon as he obtained a decree in Nevada; she accepted his proposal, although she later said she considered it a joke. Several days later he again telephoned her, saying they would be married in seven weeks; on that occasion he forced his daughter to tell Anita Aros that she wanted her for a mother.

Appellant made various telephone calls in which he accused his wife of carrying on an extramarital affair; he forced her by means of...