People v. Frye
Decision Date | 30 July 1998 |
Docket Number | No. S007198,S007198 |
Citation | 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25,959 P.2d 183,18 Cal. 4th 894 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 19 Cal.4th 253D, 959 P.2d 183, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5949, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8259 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerry Grant FRYE, Defendant and Appellant |
David A. Lane, Denver, CO, and Marianne Wesson, Boulder, CO, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Edgar A. Kerry and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendantJerry Grant Frye of two counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted otherwise), first degree robbery (§ 211), residential burglary (§ 459), and the unlawful driving and taking of a vehicle (Veh.Code, § 10851).The jury also found true the allegations that defendant was armed with a firearm and personally used a firearm during the commission of these offenses (§§ 12022, subd. (a); 12022.5).Having found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and that the murders were committed while defendant was engaged in robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), the jury set the penalty at death.The trial court denied defendant's motion to modify the sentence(§ 190.4, subd. (e)).This appeal is automatic (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11;§ 1239).
For the reasons stated below, the judgment is affirmed in its entirety.
The prosecution's chief witness, Jennifer Warsing, testified under a grant of immunity.Warsing first met defendant in a Sacramento bar in April 1984 while she was separated from her husband of many years.A romantic relationship between Warsing and defendant quickly developed, and, in early May 1984, the couple moved in together in an apartment outside of Sacramento.On several occasions during the time they lived together, defendant assaulted Warsing.
Defendant and Warsing returned to Sacramento in December 1984 or January 1985, and resided together at the River City Motel.Defendant worked at a construction job next door to the motel.Rick Evans worked with defendant at the construction site and socialized with him outside of work.Evans testified he and defendant discussed the prospect of quitting their jobs and growing marijuana for profit instead.Evans had access to a gold mining claim in Amador County that members of his family had worked for many years.
In April 1985, defendant and Evans quit their jobs to pursue the marijuana venture.With approximately $500 between them, they purchased camping equipment and other supplies.The next day, a group comprised of defendant, Warsing, Evans and his girlfriend, and Warsing's adult son drove to the mining claim property in Amador County.In addition to the camping gear and supplies they had purchased, defendant and Evans brought along marijuana seeds, a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, and ammunition.
A quarter-mile down the hill from the group's campsite was a cabin occupied by an older couple, Robert and Virginia (Jane) Brandt, who worked a gold mining claim with their son, Bobby.Evans testified that before setting up camp and sowing the marijuana seeds, he sought and obtained the Brandts' permission for the group to camp on the property.
The campsite had no running water or electricity, and meals were prepared over an open campfire.Although defendant and Warsing had a car when they moved to the campsite, they sold it to Warsing's son who left the group after a couple of days.Evans and his girlfriend returned to Sacramento a week or two later, leaving only defendant and Warsing at the campsite.Before Evans departed, it was decided Evans would return to the property once or twice a week with food and supplies, and defendant would tend the marijuana plants.
About a week after moving to the campsite, Warsing met the Brandts, and became friendly with them.Warsing would occasionally accompany Jane Brandt in the Brandts' 1982Lincoln Towncar to run errands in town.On these excursions, Warsing became aware that Mrs. Brandt carried an unusually large amount of cash with her to pay for goods and services.Rick Evans testified defendant and Warsing mentioned the Brandts' money during one of his weekly visits to the campsite.Defendant also showed Evans a small glass container filled with about a quarter-inch of gold he had scraped from the bucket of the front-end loader used by the Brandts in their mining operation.
On the morning of May 14, defendant and Warsing walked from their campsite down the hill to the Brandts' cabin.Warsing had agreed to accompany Mrs. Brandt to the dentist's office in case she did not feel well following her dental procedure.
Sometime during the late morning of May 14, an acquaintance of the Brandts, Ron Wilson, drove to the cabin.Wilson occasionally worked the Brandts' mining claim with them, receiving a percentage of the gold that was extracted.Seeing the Lincoln gone, Wilson drove by the cabin without stopping, and proceeded up another road After investigating a potential mining area, Wilson hiked to the upper part of the claim, in the vicinity of defendant's campsite.As Wilson headed back down towards the cabin to see if anyone had returned, he met defendant walking up the road.
Defendant showed Wilson the marijuana-growing operation.A short time later, Wilson drove with defendant into town where Wilson bought them lunch and a couple of beers.After lunch, Wilson and defendant made several more stops.Wilson bought a carton of cigarettes for defendant, and two 12-packs of beer.Wilson also retrieved several flats of marijuana seedlings from his girlfriend's residence for defendant to tend for him, and picked up some watering equipment from a friend.During this time, defendant and Wilson each consumed several more beers.
Defendant and Wilson arrived back at the mining claim about 3:00 in the afternoon, and went up the hill to the campsite.Mrs. Brandt and Warsing arrived back at the cabin some time later.When Warsing got out of the car, Mrs. Brandt asked her to come down for coffee later in the evening.Warsing said they probably would, and set off for the campsite up the hill.When Warsing arrived at the campsite, defendant and Wilson were talking and drinking beer.Around dusk, Wilson left the campsite and drove back home.
Warsing testified that shortly after Wilson's departure, defendant said he saw the Devil moving around the campsite.He also told her he thought he was being set up, and that he would "just take what he could."Defendant then stood by the fire where Warsing was heating water for coffee, and asked her if she had ever seen people dead before.According to Warsing's testimony, defendant was going to go down and kill the Brandts, and told her if she didn't go with him, he would have to kill her too.
Hoping to run away, Warsing told defendantshe needed to use the campsite's makeshift bathroom.Defendant accompanied her, shotgun in hand.When Warsing was finished, defendant took her by the arm and walked down the hill toward the cabin, still clutching the shotgun in the other hand.
When defendant and Warsing arrived at the Brandts' cabin, Mrs. Brandt greeted them, asking them to come inside.Defendant placed the shotgun against the kitchen doorway, and sat down in a chair nearby.Warsing sat at the table where Mrs. Brandt was working on an afghan and began helping her.
Defendant complained to Mr. Brandt that he had drunk too much and his head was hurting.Mr. Brandt started laughing.When Mrs. Brandt got up and offered coffee, defendant said he would like a cup.Hearing defendant joking with Mr. Brandt and asking for coffee, Warsing believed things had returned to normal, and she began to relax.Moments later, however, she heard a noise, and looked up to see defendant pointing the shotgun at Mr. Brandt who was now standing up in front of his recliner.Defendant shot Mr. Brandt, and he fell back in the chair.
Mrs. Brandt turned and moved towards defendant, with Warsing behind her.She yelled at defendant to stop, and lunged at him.Defendant shot Mrs. Brandt in the chin and face, and she fell onto the sofa.Defendant turned and shot Mr. Brandt a second time.Warsing testified she heard gurgly breathing from Mr. Brandt.Defendant told Warsing, "I am going to have to put him out of it."Warsing heard three blows, and then no more breathing.
According to Warsing's testimony, she started moving towards the door to leave, but defendant yelled at her to get the money out of Mrs. Brandt's purse, which she did.Defendant then directed Warsing to go in the bedroom and look for a suitcase containing Mrs. Brandt's gambling change.Defendant returned to where Mr. Brandt's body lay, and went through his pockets.Defendant took vials of gold from the kitchen counter, returned to the bedroom, and put the gold in Mrs. Brandt's suitcase.He ripped the gold nugget necklace from Mrs. Brandt's neck.When Warsing started walking out the door, defendant called her back inside the kitchen, and directed her to pour water over his bloody hands to clean them.Defendant took the shotgun and went out the door, ordering Warsing to get into the Brandts' Lincoln.
Defendant drove up the road leading to the campsite.He ordered Warsing to get his suitcase.Meanwhile, defendant kicked down the tents and knocked things over.The two left the campsite, with defendant driving fast
and recklessly in the direction of Placerville.They stopped for the night at Winnemucca, Nevada, and checked into a motel using the name Dixon, defendant's mother's maiden name....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Jernigan v. Edward
...mixed samples and the 310 Genetic Analyzer).5 Errors in testing go to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence. "'[T]he Kelly/Frye rule tests the fundamental validity of a new scientific methodology, not the degree of professionalism with which it is applied. [Citation.] Careless t......
-
People v. Dykes
...the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements." (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 970, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183, disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, ......
-
Washington v. Sherman
...investigation. "[A]s a general matter, due process does not require the police to collect particular items of evidence." (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 943.) Even if Washington's claim were characterized as a failure to preserve evidence, he has not shown bad faith on the part of la......
-
People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
...any such error was harmless because Whitmus's testimony about her status as Hill's cotenant or subtenant was not credible. In People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, the court explained the concept of consent in the context of a burglary charge. "Any person who enters a house or building with......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...consumption of alcohol or drugs. Such impairment is merely one factor, however, and it is not determinative. See People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 988, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390; see, e.g., People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1189 (waiver ......
-
Submission to jury and deliberations
...However, an objection may not be required when the court refuses to provide a readback when requested by the jury. People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 894, 1007, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25; People v. Litteral (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 790, 796-797, 145 Cal. Rptr. 186. Where Reading Occurs. Testimony mu......
-
Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
...order to authorize a search"). Consent can be express or implied. Morgan v. U.S. (9th Cir.2003) 323 F.3d 776, 781; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 990, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390. (a) Express consent. There are no specific words that must be u......
-
Table of cases
...166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 328, §§19:70, 19:100 Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013, §§17:20, 17:60, 17:140 Frye, People v. (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 894, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25, §§10:60, 21:100, 22:120 Fudge, People v. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1075, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 321, §§1:190, 3:50, 12:100, 19:150......