People v. Daniels

Decision Date07 January 1991
Docket NumberNo. S004611,S004611
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 802 P.2d 906 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jackson Chambers DANIELS, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 23619.

John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, John G. Cotsirilos, San Diego, and Peter A. Leeming, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White and Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay M. Bloom, Janelle B. Davis and Deborah D. Factor, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BROUSSARD, Justice.

Defendant Jackson Chambers Daniels, Jr., was convicted of the first degree murder of Riverside Police Officers Dennis Doty and Phil Trust. The jury found that defendant used a firearm in each murder. Defendant was also convicted of possession of cocaine, and possession of a concealable firearm by an ex-felon.

With respect to each murder, the jury found three special circumstances: "that defendant has in this proceeding been convicted of more than one offense of murder" (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); 1 "that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest ..." ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(5)); and intentional murder by a defendant who "knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties ..." ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(7)). The jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Defendant was convicted of murdering two police officers who came to take him to prison after his conviction for a 1980 bank robbery had been affirmed on appeal. In the course of the bank robbery defendant had fled in a car, pursued by Officers Bulf and Creech. The bank had planted a tear gas bomb with the stolen money; when defendant's car filed with the gas he leaned out an open door. The car made a U-turn, narrowly missing Bulf, who was standing next to his patrol car. Bulf fired at the car, which spun out of control and came to a stop. Defendant got out of the car, shot at Creech, and ran. The officers fired and defendant fell. He was hit with nine bullets, one of which entered defendant's back and left him paralyzed below the waist. The officers found the proceeds of the bank robbery in the car.

Defendant pled nolo contendere to charges of bank robbery and assault on a police officer and was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. The court granted a stay of execution to permit an appeal. Defendant Defendant's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. When we denied defendant's petition for hearing, the superior court set a hearing for April 21, 1982. When defendant did not appear at the hearing, it was continued to April 28. Defendant again did not appear, and the court issued an arrest warrant.

[802 P.2d 912] posted bail pending appeal and remained at liberty.

Defendant's uncle, who had put up the collateral for the bail, told the police that defendant was living at the house of James Cornish. On May 13, Officers Doty and Trust were assigned to go there to arrest defendant.

Alma Renee Ross, defendant's nurse, testified under immunity. She described what happened when the officers arrived. Cornish and his wife had gone to work, leaving defendant, Ross, and the Cornishes' three-year-old son in the house. Ross admitted the officers about 8:30 a.m. and took them to defendant's bedroom. Defendant was sitting on the bed, dressed only in a shirt. Ross went to his closet to get pants and shoes. When she looked back she saw defendant take a gun from between his legs. She hid in the closet and heard gunshots.

A short while later defendant called her to come out of the closet. When she did she saw defendant sitting on the floor with his back against the bed; he had a bullet wound to his right hand. Officer Doty's body was lying on the floor. Defendant picked up a gun from the floor and, with Ross's assistance, got into his wheelchair. As they left the house she saw Officer Trust, mortally wounded, kneeling on the floor of the Cornish bedroom. After defendant and Ross left the house, Trust broke the bedroom window, fired a shot to attract attention, and called for help. Two neighborhood children heard his call and went to the house of Claire Spicer, who summoned the police.

Ross drove defendant to the home of Clara Butler and her mother, Dolores Butler. Dolores saw an announcement on television about the killing, and confronted defendant. He told her, "Yes, I killed them." It was "either them or me." Clara then insisted that defendant leave.

Defendant called Claire Schall and asked her to pick him up. While they were looking for a place where defendant could stay, they heard a radio broadcast mention the killing. Defendant then said to her, "Now you know."

On May 14 defendant went to Ted Smith's house. The next morning defendant told Smith that when one of the officers went to get some clothes for him, he "saw his opportunity and took it." Defendant said that after he shot one officer, the other one shot the gun out of his hand. Defendant fell to the floor, got the first officer's gun, and shot the other policeman.

The police investigation showed that Doty had been shot three times with an unidentified gun; Trust had been shot six times, mostly with Doty's gun. Investigators also determined that Trust had fired four bullets from his gun. Three were recovered in the house; the fourth was in defendant's hand. The search of the house also turned up cocaine in both defendant's bedroom and in the Cornishes' bedroom.

At the trial police investigators attempted to reconstruct the gunfight from the location and trajectory of the bullets. They theorized that when defendant and Trust exchanged gunfire defendant was lying on the bedroom floor, shooting around the bedroom door. Trust was in the hallway between the two bedrooms. After he was hit Trust retreated to the Cornish bedroom.

The defense argued that it would be extremely difficult for defendant, after having been shot in the hand by Officer Trust, to get off the bed, take the gun from Officer Doty, and shoot Trust. Dr. Mortimer Moore offered an alternative reconstruction of the shooting differing from that of the prosecution experts. Dr. Floyd Brallier, a hand surgeon, testified that after defendant was shot in the right hand, it would have been difficult for him to hold and operate a gun with that hand.

The defense suggested that someone else--either Renee Ross, Oscar Ross (Renee's A defense investigator said Oscar Ross told him that after Renee Ross let defendant out at the Butler house, they went to the car dealership to find Cornish, but he was not there. (Pinckney said they came by about 10 a.m.) They then went to the house to find defendant's drugs and gun, but turned back because the road was blocked. Other witnesses said they saw a woman near the Cornish house pushing a man in a wheelchair. They described the woman as wearing jeans and a numbered jersey. Ross had earlier testified she had been wearing pajamas.

[802 P.2d 913] brother, and also a paraplegic), or James Cornish--had killed the officers. It presented testimony from James Pinckney, assistant sales manager at the dealership where Cornish worked, to show that James Cornish had left work to return home the morning of the murders. He may have left before 8:30 a.m. Witnesses described Cornish as using and dealing in illegal drugs.

In rebuttal, Drs. Steven Nelson, Elvert Nelson, and Allen Wolf testified that defendant could have held and shot a gun immediately after his injury. Nurse Mary Duron described defendant's ability to use his hand as of the time of trial. She added that defendant had told her "he was sorry about getting his friends involved and he felt bad about what he did to the officers' wives." A prosecution investigator said Pinckney told him Cornish left at 9:20.

The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder of Officers Trust and Doty, with a firearm-use enhancement as to each murder. It found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, a lesser included offense under the charge of possession for sale. Finally, it found him guilty of possession of a concealable firearm by an ex-felon. As noted earlier, the jury found six special circumstances: two of multiple murder, two of murder to avoid arrest, and two of murder of a police officer.

At the penalty phase the prosecution proved a number of prior criminal convictions, including a 1959 armed robbery in Phoenix, and eight armed robberies in Los Angeles in 1961. Defendant was imprisoned for the Los Angeles robberies, and released on parole in 1968. In 1976 he shot at Leslie Howard in a dispute over money Howard owed defendant. In that same year defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in which a police officer approached defendant, who was sitting in a parked car outside a 7-Eleven market, and asked for identification. Defendant drew a gun. He fled from the car, but later surrendered to the officer. Jim Rodriguez, defendant's neighbor, testified that defendant said he had tried to shoot the officer but the gun jammed.

The defense called defendant's relatives, who testified to the economic hardships of defendant's childhood. Other witnesses described defendant's life during the early 1970's after he had been paroled from his robbery convictions. Former employers and fellow workers said defendant worked regularly during that period. A former probation officer and a high school teacher testified that defendant helped high school boys in a weight-lifting program. Witnesses generally described defendant as an outgoing, friendly person much admired by the youths of the neighborhood. Defendant showed no hostility toward the police. On cross-examination, however, defendant's brother admitted that defendan...

To continue reading

Request your trial
610 cases
  • Jernigan v. Edward
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • November 7, 2017
    ...collect evidence. (See, e.g., Frye, at p. 943 [no duty to collect additional bloodstains and other items at crime scene]; People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 855 [no duty to perform gunshot residue test on witness]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 911 [no duty to take "more and b......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 21, 2018
    ...the trial court must "instruct sua sponte on the general principles of law relevant to the evidence." ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 885, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906.) If the court instructs the jury at penalty phase to disregard previously given instructions, "it must later ......
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2007
    ...the uncharged offense and the ultimate fact in dispute is not clear, the evidence should be excluded.' [Citation.]" (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856; see also People v. Gray, supra, at p. 202; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 951; People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d ......
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 637, fn. 2, 36 Cal.Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33, and People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 866, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906.) On the other hand, in the present case, defense counsel asked defendant why he purchased the firearm, openi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...now CALCRIM 351 (Cross-Examination of Character Witness), when good-character witness is cross-examined); cf. People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 883-84 (finding no duty to give CALJIC 2.42 instruction sua sponte). 3. Jury instruction. When a defendant presents evidence of his good char......
  • Irrelevant or Immaterial Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2016 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • August 2, 2016
    ...9 (Cal. App. 5 Dist.1991); People v. Wheeler , 281 Cal. Rptr. 758, 230 C.A.3d 1406 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1991). Consider People v. Daniels , 802 P.2d 906, 277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 52 Cal.3d 815 (1991), where the trial court properly permitted (for impeachment purposes) evidence that the defendant c......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...§2:73.6 People v. Dakin (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1026, §1:21.6 People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, §3:36.1 People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 864, §1:21.1.1(a), 9:94.1 People v. Daniels (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 29, §14:37 People v. Darby (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 707, §2:14 People v. Darn......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§3.1.1(3)(c) People v. Daniels, 176 Cal. App. 4th 304, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659 (6th Dist. 2009)—Ch. 4-A, §4.1.4(2)(c).3 People v. Daniels, 52 Cal. 3d 815, 277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906 (1991)—Ch. 4-A, §3.2.2(2)(c); §4.1.4(2)(f) People v. Daniels, 14 Cal. 3d 857, 122 Cal. Rptr. 872, 537 P.2d......
  • 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