People v. Finch
| Decision Date | 12 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7765 |
| Citation | 213 Cal.App.2d 752,29 Cal.Rptr. 420 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond Bernard FINCH and Carole Ann Tregoff, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Cooper & Nelsen, by Maxwell S. Keith, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant Finch.
Harold J. Ackerman, Los Angeles, Jerry Giesler (now deceased), Beverly Hills, and Donald R. Bringgold, Beverly Hills, for defendant and appellant Tregoff.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
The Los Angeles County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging defendants with murder, in violation of section 187 of the Penal Code, in Count I, and conspiracy to commit murder, in violation of section 182 of the Penal Code, in Count II. Several overt acts were alleged in the conspiracy count. The first and second jury trials resulted in mistrials being declared because of the inability of the jurors to agree upon a verdict. In a third jury trial, both defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder; defendant Finch was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and defendant Tregoff guilty of murder in the second degree. On the issue of penalty the jury fixed defendant Finch's sentence at life imprisonment on both counts and defendant Tregoff's penalty on the conspiracy count at life imprisonment. Motions for a new trial were denied. Defendant Finch was sentenced to life imprisonment on both counts. Defendant Tregoff was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law on Count I and life imprisonment on Count II. Sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Each defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying the motion for new trial.
Before the commencement of the third jury trial defendant Finch entered pleas of prior acquittal of conspiracy, former conviction of second degree murder, and once in jeopardy as to both counts alleged. Defendant Tregoff entered a plea of prior acquittal of conspiracy and once in jeopardy for the same offense. The special pleas were submitted to the jury and the jury found for the People on each of such pleas.
It will only be necessary to present an outline of the evidence since defendant Finch does not challenge the sufficiency thereof and defendant Tregoff challenges it only with respect to sustaining the verdict against her of conspiracy to commit murder in the State of California.
Doctor and Mrs. Finch were married in December 1951. Both had been married previously and divorced. She had a daughter by a previous marriage. In April of 1953 a son, Raymond, was born to Doctor and Mrs. Finch. Dr. Finch and a brother-in-law were operating a medical clinic in the city of West Covina. The family lived in a hilltop home overlooking the city.
In 1955 defendant Tregoff became employed as receptionist at the medical center. In August of 1956 she became Dr. Finch's medical secretary. An illicit relationship developed between the two which culminated in her becoming his mistress. She obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce from her husband in January of 1959. In 1958 Mrs. Finch learned of the meretricious relationship and on March 21, 1959, Dr. Finch was served with a divorce complaint and an order to show cause by which Mrs. Finch sought temporary alimony and child support.
During May and June 1959 defendant Tregoff was living in Las Vegas, Nevada. While there, through an intermediary, she met one Jack Cody. Cody testified in substance that the defendants hired him to murder Mrs. Finch and that he was paid the sum of $1,000 in cash to accomplish this act. Cody did nothing for the money paid him nor, according to his testimony, did he ever intend to do anything. Both defendants admitted meeting Cody and admitted they hired him. However, they asserted their purpose was to obtain evidence that might be used against Mrs. Finch in the pending divorce action and not to kill her.
Defendant Finch was a frequent visitor in Las Vegas for the purpose of seeing his paramour. In the late evening of July 17, 1959, Finch took a plane to Las Vegas. He carried with him a large suitcase and an attache case. Carole Tregoff met Finch at the airport and they talked until the early morning hours of July 18. In the evening of that day the two started driving to West Covina in defendant Tregoff's car. They were carrying with them an attache case containing a .38 revolver, live cartridges, a butcher knife, two hypodermic needles, two syringes, two 10-foot coils of laundry rope, a flashlight, seconal in pill and liquid form, and various other items. Upon arrival in West Covina they parked in the South Hulls Country Club parking lot at about 10:30 p. m. in a position almost directly below the Finch residence. At approximately 11:40 p. m. the West Covina Police Department received a call from the Finch maid, Marie Ann Lidholm. Two police cars arrived at the Finch home about midnight and one of the officers discovered the body of Mrs. Finch lying on the back lawn of the home of defendant Finch's father adjoining defendant Finch's home.
Mrs. Finch met her death as a result of a gunshot wound in the back fired from a distance of approximately 2 to 4 feet. The evidence supported the prosecution's contention that defendants came to West Covina with the preconceived plan of murdering Mrs. Finch. Once on the Finch property they concealed themselves and lay in wait for her. When she arrived home she drove into the garage without seeing defendants. As she was getting out of her car defendant Finch struck her with a gun butt causing a skull fracture which produced bleeding from her left ear. She was stunned temporarily but recovered, and a struggle between Dr. and Mrs. Finch ensued in the garage. Defendant Tregoff withdrew from the scene and hid herself in bushes near the house. During the struggle Mrs. Finch called for help. Her call was answered by Marie Ann Lidholm. The latter entered the side door of the garage and turned on the lights. She saw Mrs. Finch lying on the floor and defendant Finch standing near her. Finch rushed up to Miss Lidholm, switched off the lights, grabbed her head and knocked it against the wall three or more times. He told her to get into the car. At first she did not do so. Then she noticed Finch was holding a gun. He fired a shot and she got into the back seat of the car. Finch told Mrs. Finch to get into the car and get the car keys. She got in on the passenger side. Finch entered on the driver's side and then he said, 'If you don't get them I'll kill you.' Mrs. Finch left the car and ran toward the garage door. Finch also rushed out of the car. Marie Ann Lidholm heard her shout for help and heard a second shot. The struggle between the parties culminated with Mrs. Finch running from the garage toward her father-in-law's house with Dr. Finch behind her. Miss Lidholm went back into the house and called the police.
The prosecution claimed that Dr. Finch had a gun with him when in pursuit of his wife and that he deliberately shot her while she was seeking refuge at her father-in-law's; that he pursued her and shot her in the back at close range and then fractured her skull with the gun butt while she lay flat on her back on the ground.
Defendant Finch claimed the second shot was accidental; that the struggle in the garage started when Mrs. Finch herself produced a gun from the car upon being approached by the two defendants seeking to talk to her; that when Mrs. Finch left the garage she had the gun and that Dr. Finch chased her for the purpose of taking it from her; that he seized the gun during another brief struggle on the driveway and it fired accidentally while he was attempting to throw it away.
Defendant Tregoff remained hidden in the shrubbery and eventually fled the scene driving her own car back to Las Vegas. Defendant Finch appropriated someone else's automobile and fled to Las Vegas. Defendant Tregoff found him in her apartment. He was arrested the next day in Las Vegas.
Both defendants contend the court committed prejudicial error in its failure to submit to the jury certain instructions on their special pleas of once in jeopardy, former conviction and former acquittal. Defendant Finch contended that he had already been acquitted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder by the jury in the second trial which voted unanimously to acquit him of the offense. Likewise, he contended that he had already been convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree because of a verdict of that same jury. He asserted this verdict failed to determine the degree of the crime of murder and therefore, pursuant to the provisions of section 1157 of the Penal Code, the degree must be construed to be that of the lesser crime, in this case murder in the second degree. He contended no judgment was rendered on these verdicts because the judge presiding at that trial failed, neglected and refused to receive them and therefore prevented a judgment from being rendered thereon.
Defendant Finch's pleas of once in jeopardy for the offenses of murder and conspiracy were based upon the action of the judge in the second trial declaring a mistrial and discharging the jury without having received these verdicts and without entering a judgment thereon.
Defendant Tregoff contended similarly that she had been acquitted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder because the jury at the second trial voted unanimously to acquit her of that offense. She also contended she had been once in jeopardy for the offense of conspiracy because this same jury found her not guilty of such offense.
Eight of the jurors from the second trial were called to testify at the third trial as to their deliberations. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. Superior Court
... ... 647 ... 31 Cal.3d 503, 646 P.2d 809 ... Clifford STONE, Petitioner, ... The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent, ... The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest ... L.A. 31395 ... Supreme Court of California, ... June 1, 1982 ... As Modified June 15, 1982 ... Page 649 ... (See also People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 762, 29 Cal.Rptr. 420.) ... It should go without saying that since no partial verdict had been reached, ... ...
-
People v. Manson
... ... Kobey, supra, p. 562, 234 P.2d p. 258; see also, People v. Steccone (1950) 36 Cal.2d 234, 237--238, 223 P.2d 17; People v. Wheeler (1972), 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 307, 100 Cal.Rptr. 198; People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 29 Cal.Rptr. 420.) ... Sometime in 1967 Manson found his way to the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. While there he became associated with young [61 Cal.App.3d 127] girls and women who were runaways, drop outs or otherwise disassociated with ... ...
-
People v. Woods
... ... 8, 117 Cal.Rptr. 70, 527 P.2d 622, citing Blackwood as well as People v. Braun (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 949, 973-974, 106 Cal.Rptr. 56, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25, fn. 10, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468, and People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 777, 29 Cal.Rptr. 420; see also People v. Griffith (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 715, 5 Cal.Rptr. 620; People v. Martinez (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 161, 164, 179, 48 [8 Cal.App.4th 1592] Cal.Rptr. 521; People v. Simpson (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 319, 152 P.2d 339.) 9 ... ...
-
People v. Taylor
... ... Allsip (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 830, 831--832, 74 Cal.Rptr. 550). Other cases hold that an accused, as an aider and abettor, may be convicted of a lesser crime than the perpetrator when they are tried together. (People v. Braun (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 949, 973--974, 106 Cal.Rptr. 56; People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 777, 29 Cal.Rptr. 420; and People v. Blackwood (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 728, 732--733, 96 P.2d 982.) ... 9 Woodford v. Municipal Court, supra, 37 Cal.App.3d 874, 877--878, 112 Cal.Rptr. 773, and People v. Seltzer, 25 Cal.App.3d Supp. 52, 54--57, 101 Cal.Rptr. 260, involved ... ...