People v. Crandell

Decision Date15 September 1988
Docket NumberNo. 22467,22467
Citation251 Cal.Rptr. 227,760 P.2d 423,46 Cal.3d 833
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 760 P.2d 423 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kenneth CRANDELL, Defendant and Appellant. Crim.

John W. Poulos, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert F. Katz, Lauren E. Dana, William R. Weisman, Los Angeles, and Cynthia Sonns Waldman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

KAUFMAN, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) 1 from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law ( § 190.1 et seq.). We shall affirm the judgment as to guilt, and as to one of two special circumstance findings, but we shall reverse the judgment as to penalty.

Defendant was charged with the murders of Ernest Pruett (Ernest) and Edward Pruett (Edward). The special circumstance of multiple murders § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) was alleged as to each murder count. Defendant was also charged with assault with intent to rape and kidnapping of Marie Pruett (Marie). Defendant was convicted on all counts, the two special circumstance allegations were found to be true, and defendant was sentenced to death.

Marie testified at trial that on July 5, 1980, she was 15 years old and lived in a one-bedroom house in North Hollywood with her father Ernest, her 14-year-old brother Edward, her 7-year-old sister Kathy Pruett (Kathy), and defendant Kenneth Crandell (defendant). Marie had known defendant as a family friend as long as she could remember. In February or March of 1980 defendant had begun living with her family because he needed a place to sleep. Defendant was then working in Orange County as a machinist, a job he had obtained with the help of Marie's half-brother Vernon Pruett.

During the evening of July 5, Marie and Kathy went to a friend's house, returning about 10 p.m. Ernest and defendant had been drinking vodka and were engaged in an argument. Ernest accused defendant of cheating at work and defendant denied it. Edward was telling them both to be quiet so he could sleep. Marie took Kathy into the bedroom, closed the door, turned on a fan, and went to bed.

Marie awoke before dawn and went to the kitchen to make coffee. As she walked through the living room, Marie saw her brother face down on the floor, in a place where he often slept. Defendant was awake, seated on a couch. Marie asked where her father was. Defendant said he had gone to a bar. Marie did not believe it and asked again where her father was. Defendant told her Ernest and Edward were both dead. Defendant said he had shot Ernest in the head while holding a pillow over the gun, and had also shot Edward.

Defendant told Marie to remove her clothes. When she refused, defendant showed her a handgun and said: "I will use this again. There's no need stopping now." Marie removed her clothes and defendant got on top of her after dropping his pants to his knees. Defendant said, "Come on, this is my last piece." Defendant attempted intercourse but did not achieve penetration. Defendant got up after approximately two minutes when Marie said, "That's enough."

A few minutes later defendant said: "Don't turn me in 'cause I'll get the gas chamber." Defendant said he would take the bodies to the desert and bury them. He dragged Edward's body to the service porch at the rear of the house. Defendant told Marie to bring him rags, a scrub brush, and a bowl of soap suds. As defendant was scrubbing blood stains from the carpet, Marie took a cast iron skillet from the stove. Swinging as hard as she could, Marie hit defendant in the head with the skillet. The skillet cracked but defendant appeared unharmed. He said to Marie: "I've got to keep my eye on you now because I can't trust you."

Defendant wanted to leave so he could get money from a friend. Marie woke Kathy and helped her dress. Defendant placed the handgun in a blue airline bag which he carried with him in his automobile. Defendant also brought with him a pillow which had been made by Marie's mother. Marie saw a hole surrounded by a scorched area on one side of the pillow.

Defendant drove to a condominium in Marina del Rey where he talked to a man for a short time. Defendant, Marie, and Kathy stayed at the complex for a few hours while Kathy, who knew nothing of the deaths of her father and brother, swam in the children's pool. Defendant started to drive to his place of employment in Orange County but turned back after making a telephone call. Defendant stopped along the way to throw the pillow into a dumpster. 2 Returning to North Hollywood, defendant borrowed $27 from a friend named Rodolfo Moreno.

Defendant was apparently headed toward Salinas to visit another friend when Marie persuaded him to telephone the friend from her aunt's house in Newhall. While defendant was talking with her aunt and uncle, Marie took Kathy out the back door. They went to a neighbor's house and Marie telephoned the sheriff's department to report the homicides.

Marie's information was relayed to police in North Hollywood who verified there were two bodies on the service porch of the Pruett house. A surveillance was set up at the house.

From the house of Marie's aunt, defendant drove again to Rodolfo Moreno's house in North Hollywood. According to Moreno's testimony, defendant said he was in "real trouble" and made Moreno promise to help before explaining. After saying he had killed both Ernest and Edward, defendant said he had been fighting with Ernest when Edward intervened and Ernest, enraged, took defendant's gun and shot Edward. Defendant said he then shot Ernest and afterwards tried to choke him. Moreno urged defendant to call the police but defendant said they would never believe him because they would find his fingerprints on the gun. Defendant asked Moreno to help load the bodies into Moreno's pickup and take them to the desert for burial. Moreno agreed out of fear. Defendant touched Moreno with the gun, which was wrapped in rags, saying: "... if you trick me I got nothing to lose. I already killed."

Defendant and Moreno drove to the Pruett house where defendant was stopped and arrested. A .38 caliber revolver, loaded with six live rounds, was found in a blue airline bag in defendant's vehicle.

In a tape-recorded interview that evening, defendant said Ernest had shot Edward when Edward took defendant's side in the argument. Defendant said: "I went over and got the gun and pulled it away from him and I shot him. And he got the gun away from me again, and I grabbed him around the neck, and got him down to the floor, and he went--uh--uh--uh, and uh, finally, he just stopped. So then I dragged him out on the back porch."

The autopsy surgeon testified that Ernest's death was caused by a gunshot wound above the right eye and by strangulation. The large size of the entrance wound suggested the gun's muzzle had been very close to the victim's skin. Scraps of fabric and fiber found inside the wound, and the absence of powder burns, were consistent with a pillow having been placed between the gun muzzle and the victim's head. This wound would have caused immediate unconsciousness. Ernest's larynx had been fractured and there was hemorrhage consistent with manual strangulation. Both the strangulation and the gunshot wound were inflicted before death and they could have occurred in either order. Scrapes and contusions on the victim's face and arms could have been caused by a struggle or by being dragged across a floor before death.

A test of Ernest's hands revealed no trace of gunshot residue. His blood alcohol content at the time of death was between .05 and .07 percent.

Edward was killed by a bullet which entered above and behind the left ear and exited in front of the right ear. The small size of the entrance wound and the absence of powder burns on the victim's skin were consistent with the gun having been fired from a distance. A bullet was recovered from a blood-soaked pillow found on the service porch, indicating that Edward was lying with his head on the pillow when he was shot.

Juan Salasar, a neighbor of the Pruett family, testified to a conversation with Ernest on July 5 during which Ernest said he did not want defendant to live there any more. Salasar also testified that Edward had stated many times he did not want defendant living there.

Defendant did not testify at trial.

The jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder, one count of kidnapping, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. Defendant was found to have used a firearm in the commission of each offense and two multiple-murder special circumstances were found to be true. The penalty was fixed at death.

I. COUNSEL ISSUES

Defendant represented himself at the preliminary hearing and at trial without the assistance or advice of counsel. He contends he was forced to undertake self-representation as a result of the failings of his appointed attorney and a series of improper rulings on his requests for competent legal assistance. Although the trial court's failure to exercise discretion on defendant's request for appointment of advisory counsel was error under People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 209 Cal.Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994, we have concluded it was harmless under the facts of this case. The other counsel issues, for the reasons which will appear, are without merit.

A. Municipal Court Proceedings.

Defendant moved in superior court under section 995 to set aside the information on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing. The motion was denied and defendant now contends that this ruling was erroneous. This contention requires a review of the proceedings in municipal court.

1. Facts.

The public defender was appointed to represent defendant on July 9, 1980. The deputy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
724 cases
  • People v. Nash, A123128 (Cal. App. 12/18/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2009
    ...that his movement was motivated by guilty knowledge.' [Citation.]" (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 470; see also People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869.) "In general, an instruction advising the jury that evidence of flight alone is insufficient to establish guilt but may be c......
  • Secrease v. Walker, 2: 09 - cv - 299 JAM TJB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • July 12, 2011
    ...not guilty. Also when this instruction is considered in light of all the other instructions, as we are required to do (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 874), the jury was clearly and adequately instructed that the burden of proving the defendant guilty rested with the prosecution. H......
  • Mayhan v. Gipson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 12, 2016
    ...to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney's inadequate performance." (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 854, abrogated on another ground as stated in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365.) "The defendant ... cannot rest upon m......
  • Bolin v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 9, 2016
    ...trial, these instructions were the standard instructions on these issues, approved by the California Supreme Court. See People v. Crandell, 46 Cal. 3d 833, 871 (1988) (abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crayton, 28 Cal. 4th 346, 364-65; see also Pelmer, 877 F.2d at 1522 (holding assist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Dist. 1990)—Ch. 5-B, §2.1 People v. Craig, 86 Cal. App. 3d 905, 150 Cal. Rptr. 676 (3d Dist. 1978)—Ch. 3-A, §3.2.3 People v. Crandell, 46 Cal. 3d 833, 251 Cal. Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423 (1988)—Ch. 1, §4.8.4(1) People v. Cressy, 47 Cal. App. 4th 981, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 237 (1st Dist. 1996)—Ch. 5......
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...observed or arrested.”’ ( People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 60 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388], quoting People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869 [251 Cal.Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423].)” Defendant has not cited any legislative history to show the Legislature had this special meaning ......
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...physically run from the scene or travel to a faraway haven. People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055; People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869, overruled on other grounds, People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346. Nor is it necessary to show that the defendant had knowledge that c......

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