People v. Easley

Citation196 Cal.Rptr. 309,34 Cal.3d 858,671 P.2d 813
Decision Date07 November 1983
Docket NumberCr. 21117
Parties, 671 P.2d 813 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Elbert Lee EASLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)

Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, for defendant and appellant.

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Joseph Levine, Michael G. Millman, Eric S. Multhaup, San Francisco, and Steven W. Parnes, Sacramento, Deputy State Public Defenders, as amici curiae, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and George Deukmejian, Attys. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer and Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., William D. Stein and Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., Herbert F. Wilkinson, W. Eric Collins, Eugene W. Kaster and John B. Moy, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Christopher N. Heard, San Jose, as amicus curiae, for plaintiff and respondent.

KAUS, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal from a judgment imposing a penalty of death. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) 1 We filed an initial opinion in this case on December 10, 1982, but before the opinion became final (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 24(a)), the State Public Defender filed an amicus curiae brief which brought to our attention a number of significant legal issues that had not been raised by defense counsel or the Attorney General and had not been addressed in the court's opinion. Recognizing that in death penalty cases the provisions of section 1239, subdivision (b) impose "a duty upon this court 'to make an examination of the complete record of the proceedings ... to the end that it be ascertained whether defendant was given a fair trial' " (emphasis added) (People v. Stanworth (1969) 71 Cal.2d 820, 833, 80 Cal.Rptr. 49, 457 P.2d 889; People v. Bob (1946) 29 Cal.2d 321, 328, 175 P.2d 12; People v. Perry (1939) 14 Cal.2d 387, 392, 94 P.2d 559; People v. Figueroa (1911) 160 Cal. 80, 81, 116 P. 391), we granted a rehearing to give full consideration to the new issues.

When our initial decision was filed, the court was unanimous in concluding that the judgment of guilt should be affirmed. Inasmuch as the newly raised issues relate solely to the penalty phase of the trial, the present opinion simply adopts, in parts I and II, the discussion of the facts of the case and the guilt phase issues contained in Justice Richardson's initial opinion for the court. Thereafter, in part III, we address the penalty phase issues, and conclude that at that phase a number of substantial errors occurred which require a remand for a new penalty trial.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Elbert Lee Easley was convicted by a jury of the first degree murders of Reiner and Sigrid Junghans. (§§ 187, 189.) The jury found that defendant used a deadly weapon, a "pick type instrument," in the commission of the murders. (§ 12022.) The jury also found as special circumstances (1) the murders were intentional and carried out pursuant to an agreement to accept valuable consideration from a person other than the victims (former § 190.2, subd. (a)), and (2) defendant personally committed more than one offense of murder (former § 190.2, subd. (c)(5)). The jury fixed the penalty at death.

We describe the evidentiary web revealed at trial. Reiner and Sigrid Junghans were killed in Modesto on the evening of October 14, 1978. Each was stabbed repeatedly in the head and chest, during which time Sigrid had a rubber ball in her mouth. The pathologist testified that Reiner died from the stab wounds, while Sigrid died from a combination of stab wounds and suffocation caused by the rubber ball.

The prosecution's case rested on the theory that a corporate power struggle had developed between Reiner Junghans and codefendant, Joseph Penka. Two former employees, Raymond Smith (Smith) and Donald Davis (Davis), testified that Penka contracted with them to arrange Reiner's death and that they then contacted Westmoreland, defendant's brother-in-law. Westmoreland testified that he hired defendant to kill Reiner.

Penka's business associate testified at length about the dispute between Penka and Reiner, which stemmed from a power struggle among three corporations in which Penka owned stock. He and Reiner were the principal shareholders in one of those corporations, IMMCO, and Penka was repeatedly frustrated in his attempt to wrest control of IMMCO from Reiner. In February 1978, he threatened to "get" those who had opposed him, including Reiner.

Smith and Davis worked for IMMCO until February 1978, when Reiner fired them. One month later, they were arrested and charged with the theft of scrap metal from IMMCO. While departing from a hearing on the theft charge, Penka said to Davis and Smith, "Reiner is going to get his one way or the other." Smith said "The other?" and Penka responded with a threatening gesture.

About two months later, at Davis' urging, Smith called Penka to ask about Reiner. Penka said he was still interested in "taking care of the other," and asked Smith to see what he could do. Smith negotiated with Penka, eventually arriving at a price of $12,500. Penka paid him a down payment of $4,000. Smith made arrangements to have Reiner killed, but the plans fell through.

In late September, Smith and Davis contacted Westmoreland, who agreed to arrange the killing. He went to Fresno to talk to defendant, who said he would kill Reiner for $4,000.

Westmoreland told Davis that he did not have time to do it himself, but would "get Elbert to do it." Smith and Davis located the Junghans' home, and pointed it out to Westmoreland, who showed it to defendant in early October. They agreed that Reiner would be killed by October 15.

On October 13, Penka asked Davis to delay the killing until February. Davis told him it might be too late. Also on October 13, defendant went with his girlfriend, Lorrie Ross, to a farm near Fresno where he obtained baling wire, cutting it with a tool resembling a pair of pliers. At some point during that day, he pawned a carpentry tool, an air nailer, for $30. He used the money to purchase gasoline for his car and drove to Modesto, arriving at Westmoreland's house late that night. Westmoreland testified that he saw baling wire in defendant's bag.

Defendant told Westmoreland he needed a gun. Westmoreland went to see Davis early the next morning, October 14, and Davis gave him a sawed-off shotgun which Davis had bought from his brother Kenneth earlier that morning. Davis himself had sawed off the gun, telling his brother that he was going to sell it to "a couple of guys from Texas."

Westmoreland delivered the gun, wrapped in a sweater, to defendant who told him that he would hide the gun in the sweater until the door was opened, then pull it out and use it to force entry into the house. He practiced handling the gun and sweater.

That same morning, Westmoreland and defendant purchased an icepick and two rubber balls. At approximately noon, defendant left Westmoreland's home with baling wire in his belt loops, carrying the shotgun and icepick. He returned in half an hour, saying that Reiner was not home.

Defendant left again about 5:30 or 6 p.m. He called Westmoreland between 8 and 8:30 p.m. and said it was over. Westmoreland met him at a store, where defendant said he had killed Reiner and Sigrid, and gave Westmoreland Reiner's wallet. Westmoreland directed defendant to wait for him at a diner and drove to Davis' house. He told Davis the Junghans were dead and "Elbert wants his money." Davis called Penka's house several times, but received no answer. He eventually left a message with a woman at the house. About 10 p.m. Penka returned Davis' call and arranged to meet him. Within 10 minutes Penka arrived with $5,000. Davis gave the money to Westmoreland, who kept $1,000 and gave the remainder to defendant.

A bank official testified that she cashed two checks totalling $5,000 for Penka on October 6. She gave him bundles of $20 bills, fastened together with rubber bands.

Lorrie Ross testified that upon his arrival at her home in Fresno at 11 or 12 o'clock on the night of October 14, defendant showed her an envelope containing $4,000 in $20 bills secured by rubber bands, and told her he had robbed a bar. The next day, they visited defendant's uncle and repaid him $600 that defendant had borrowed from him, paying it entirely in $20 bills. Defendant also rented an apartment, bought a headstone for his daughter's grave for $350, spent $100 at a department store, $75 for clothing and $100 for groceries, and gave $200 to Ross' relatives. He and Ross spent two nights at a motel and ate at restaurants, and on October 17, purchased a car for $1,556, paying with $20 bills.

The bodies of Reiner and Sigrid were discovered on October 16. Baling wire was found wrapped loosely around one of Sigrid's wrists and the rubber ball was in her mouth. Reiner's hands and feet were tied with similar wire and a rubber ball was next to his body. Four loose pieces of baling wire were found outside the home. Newspapers dated October 15 and 16 were at the front door. A friend testified that she had talked to Junghans at about 7:15 p.m. on October 14, and that it was agreed that they would pick her up at her home at 7:30. When they did not arrive, she called their home repeatedly, beginning at 8 p.m., but received no answer. Based on this information and the condition of the bodies, the pathologist concluded that they had been killed on the evening of October 14.

The police found a small piece of paper on the floor near Sigrid's body, containing the name, "Dave Balch," and two addresses. (Dave Balch was never identified at trial. Westmoreland testified that defendant had planned to obtain entry to the Junghans' home by showing a note to the person who answered the door and asking for directions.) A fingerprint on this paper was identified as defendant's. The officers also discovered a shotgun, bearing Kenneth Davis' fingerprint, on the kitchen table. They were unable to locate Reiner's wallet.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
220 cases
  • People v. Fields
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1983
    ...questions as whether they would consider the death penalty if the defendant were Adolf Hitler.2 As in People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813, the State Public Defender has filed an amicus brief in support of a grant of a rehearing in this case in which he rai......
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 Agosto 1988
    ...penalty and it was not given the "expanded factor (k)" instruction subsequently prescribed in People v. Easley 1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813, nor was it otherwise instructed that it might consider "sympathy" factors favoring defendant; and (ii) the jury was instructed......
  • People v. Howard
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 1988
    ...which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse to the crime." In People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 878-879, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813, footnote 10, we had directed courts to instruct on that factor by adding to the statutory language the following:......
  • People v. Lucky
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1988
    ...defendant's character or record ... that [he] proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.' " (People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 878, fn. 10, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813 26; see Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964, 57 L.Ed.2d 973.) Further, he urges......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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