People v. Eli
| Citation | 424 P.2d 356,56 Cal.Rptr. 916,66 Cal.2d 63 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 9235 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 424 P.2d 356 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Nathan Elmont ELI, Defendant and Appellant. In Bank |
Daniel B. Hunter, San Diego, under appointment by Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment after trial before a jury, on verdicts finding defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and imposing the death penalty.
Facts: In February 1965 Donald Dunn, a lieutenant in the United States Navy, lived at 5138 Manchester Road in San Diego. On February 6 or 7, 1965, the ship to which he was assigned left San Diego on maneuvers. It was anticipated the ship would return approximately the first of March.
Lt. Dunn's wife was 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighed 104 pounds. Mr. Anthony Daniels, a neighbor, saw her in her backyard between 4 and 5 p.m. on Saturday, February 20, 1965. Normally a light was on in the back of the Dunn house in the evening, but Mr. Daniels saw no light there on Sunday.
George Harvey James is the San Diego distributor for the Kirby Company, which conducts a business of selling vacuum cleaners in homes. In February 1965 defendant was working for Mr. James as a salesman for the company. At that time defendant was almost 21 years old.
An appointment had been made to demonstrate a vacuum cleaner to Mrs. Dunn on Friday, February 19, 1965. The appointment was rescheduled for 7 p.m. on Saturday, the 20th, and defendant was assigned to make the call.
Men who work for the company are trained in the procedures to be used in making demonstrations. After demonstrating the machine, the salesman makes a 'trial close.' If this is unsuccessful, further demonstration is made, and the salesman again asks for an order.
If this is not successful, further demonstration is made, and the salesman telephones the office in an attempt to arrange a lower down payment or lower payments. This latter conversation is the final step and is recorded on the company's form. No such call was made by defendant from the Dunn residence.
On February 22, 1965, Officer Edward T. Young received a call to go to 5138 Manchester Road in San Diego. He arrived at approximately 1:55 p.m. As he entered, he saw a small boy, three or four years old, and a dog. He went down the hallway leading off the living room, and on the bed in one of the bedrooms he saw the partially nude body of Mrs. Dunn. She had obviously been dead for some time. In the bedroom across the hall from the room where the body was, Officer Young discovered a baby about six months old, lying in a crib. He wrapped the baby in a blanket and took it to the neighbors across the street.
Sergeant Edward C. Stevens arrived at 5138 Manchester Road around 3 p.m. and made an examination of the house and its interior. In the bedroom he saw Mrs. Dunn's body. She was wearing a blue sleeveless blouse or sweater and a brassiere, and was otherwise nude. There was a small blood fleck on her right eyelid. Bloody foam exuded from her nose, and blood was running down the left side of her face onto the bed. There was a brown, two-strand cord wrapped around her neck several times and knotted under her right ear in what appeared to be a square knot.
In her left chest there were what appeared to be two puncture wounds, close together. There was blood running from these wounds down the left side of her body and soaking into the mattress. On the floor between the bed and the dresser there were a pair of red capri pants, a pair of white ladies' panties, and a pair of black ladies' low slippers. Between the bed and the wall there was a table lamp. The cord was pulled loose at the base of this lamp. Defendant's fingerprints were found in the apartment.
An autopsy of Mrs. Dunn's body disclosed a stab wound in the left lung and a small residuum of the stab wound on the back of the chest. Death was caused by (1) bleeding into the chest and collapse of the left lung because of the stab wound and (2) ligature strangulation.
About 1 a.m. on February 25, 1965, defendant's father telephoned the police, advising them that defendant wanted to come in and talk with them about the case. An appointment was made for 9 or 9:30 a.m. Defendant appeared at the police station, as scheduled, accompanied by his parents.
Sergeant Stevens told Officer Wright to take defendant to the back of the office and said that they would interview him there. Sergeant Stevens then told defendant that he did not have to make any statement, that any statements he made could be used in court, and that he was entitled to an attorney. When asked if he understood, defendant answered, 'Yes.'
Defendant was asked when he first became aware of the Dunn case. He said that on Wednesday night, while he and his family were returning from a trip to Ventura, there was a news broadcast that made reference to the Eva Croft murder and also to the Dunn case; that the name 'Dunn' rang a bell with him, and when he returned home, he checked his appointment cards and found he had had an appointment at the Dunn home; and that he told his father about it, and his father called the police department and set up an appointment to bring him to the station.
Defendant told the officers that he arrived at the Dunn house on February 20, 1965, about 7 p.m. or shortly thereafter, parked his car, brought the vacuum cleaner equipment into the house, gave Mrs. Dunn 250 Blue Chip stamps, made a telephone call back to his office, and then began the demonstration.
He said that he started with the Handi-Butler, which has a knife sharpener attachment, and asked Mrs. Dunn if she wanted to have any knives sharpened; that she produced a knife with a serrated edge, but he was not sure whether he sharpened the knife or not; that he cleaned the oven and polished a silver candlestick; and that he then brought out the crystalator attachment used for demothing closets and during this demonstration built a foam snowman in the bathtub for the little boy.
Defendant further stated that he and Mrs. Dunn went into the bedroom; that he vacuumed the mattress, showing her the dead skin which had been removed; that she remade the bed with clean sheets; that they then talked about the sale of the machine, and Mrs. Dunn gave him what defendant termed the 'husband objection'; that he was not able to overcome it; and that he therefore packed up his machine and left about 9 p.m., arriving home about 9:30.
Defendant told the officers that when he arrived home, he watched TV with his mother, that his father came home from work around 10:15 or 10:30, and that they watched the news on TV, ate, and then went to bed.
He further said that he drove a 1955 Mercury with a blue top and a white bottom; that at the time of his visit to the Dunn house he was wearing a green suit with a white shirt and a tie; that on Sunday and Monday he had visited with his girl friend; and that on Tuesday his car 'blew a rod' and he had taken the car to the 'E' Street Auto Wreckers.
When asked if the officers could examine the clothing he was wearing Saturday night and his car, defendant said they could. Defendant, Sergeant Stevens, and Officer Wright then left the police station in a police car and drove to defendant's house. Defendant went into his bedroom and brought out a green suit and a white shirt, which Sergeant Stevens put in the back seat of the police car.
Afterwards, the officers and defendant went to the 'E' Street Auto Wreckers in Chula Vista, and defendant showed the officers his car. Defendant talked with the mechanic, who was taking the old motor out of the car and putting another motor in.
They returned to the police car, and defendant said that he was not sure which pair of shoes he had been wearing Saturday night and that they might be a pair he had at home. Defendant was asked if it would be all right if they went back to his home and picked up the pair of shoes, and he answered that it would. They returned to defendant's home, and defendant gave the officers the pair of shoes. They then returned to the police station.
After further discussion of the facts of the case, they had lunch. When asked, defendant readily agreed to a lie detector test. He was then taken to room 33 and introduced to Mr. Gardella, the polygraph examiner for the police department, about 2:05 p.m. Mr. Gardella explained the test and told defendant that he had to volunteer for the test, that anything he said could be used against him at a trial, and that he had the right to counsel. Defendant signed a statement consenting to the interview.
After the test was given, Mr. Gardella told defendant that, in his opinion, defendant was not telling the truth; that the test showed he had had sexual relations with Mrs. Dunn; and that there was deception on other critical questions.
Defendant then said that Mrs. Dunn had started making double meaning statements, which led him to believe she wanted to have sexual relations; that he had asked her if that is what she meant; that she said it was and went into the bedroom, undressing as she went; that he had a very short act with her and then left; and that the last he saw of Mrs. Dunn was while she was standing, alive and well, at the front door.
Defendant was told that the evidence did not substantiate his story and that he was lying. He was told that there was evidence which would indicate the intercourse had taken place after Mrs. Dunn's death. He said he did not care what the evidence showed, that he knew what had happened, and that he did not have anything to worry about, as he had not murdered Mrs. Dunn.
At defendant's suggestion, he was reexamined with questions he had written himself; but he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ray
...he cannot now complain. (See People v. Wilson, supra, 66 A.C. 779, 796, 59 Cal.Rptr. 156, 427 P.2d 820; People v. Eli (1967) 66 A.C. 53, 62--66, 56 Cal.Rptr. 916, 424 P.2d 356; People v. Thomas, supra, 65 A.C. 749, 755--756, 56 Cal.Rptr. 305, 423 P.2d 233; People v. La Vergne (1966) 64 Cal.......
-
People v. Lara
...given and apparently whether they were waived were for the court and not the jury, but that case conflicts with People v. Eli, 66 A.C. 53, 67, 56 Cal.Rptr. 916, 424 P.2d 356, where it was apparently held that when conflicting evidence is introduced on the issues, they must be submitted to t......
-
People v. Ramos
...impeachment inquiry of this nature is with the good faith belief in its foundation. As we explained in People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 79, 56 Cal.Rptr. 916, 424 P.2d 356, "Counsel must not be permitted to take random shots at a reputation imprudently exposed, or to ask groundless questio......
- People v. Webb
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
...This good-faith requirement prohibits the prosecution from asking about events having little or no basis in fact. People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 79; see Hempstead, 148 Cal.App.3d at 953. The court's determination of whether the prosecution has the required good-faith belief should alway......
-
Table of Cases null
...§11.2.2(2)(a) People v. Elder, 11 Cal. App. 5th 123, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 493 (6th Dist. 2017)—Ch. 4-C, §1.4.3(1)(a)[4] People v. Eli, 66 Cal. 2d 63, 56 Cal. Rptr. 916, 424 P.2d 356 (1967)—Ch. 4-A, §3.2.2(2)(a); B, §4.1.1(1) People v. Elizalde, 61 Cal. 4th 523, 189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518, 351 P.3d ......
-
Chapter 4 - §4. Impeaching specific witnesses
...the prosecution has the required good-faith belief should always be accomplished outside the presence of the jury. People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 79; Kramer, 259 Cal.App.2d at 466; see Michelson v. U.S. (1948) 335 U.S. 469, 481 & n.18. The court has the authority to carefully control "H......