People v. Garceau

Decision Date18 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. S004776,S004776
Citation24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664,6 Cal.4th 140,862 P.2d 664
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 862 P.2d 664 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Frederick GARCEAU, Defendant and Appellant.

Doron Weinberg, Weinberg & Wilder, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Denise Kendall and Lynne Shatzkin Coffin, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van De Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., George Williamson and Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ward A. Campbell and Lisbeth Bellet, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

GEORGE, Justice.

Following the guilt phase of a jury trial, the jury found defendant Robert Frederick Garceau guilty of two counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189), 1 and found true the allegation of personal use of a knife in the commission of each offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and a multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty at death, and thereafter the court imposed a sentence of death.

This case reaches us on automatic appeal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

FACTS

The evidence at trial established that on September 6 or 7, 1984, in a Bakersfield apartment, defendant fatally stabbed his girl friend, Maureen Bautista, in the presence of her 14-year-old son, Telesforo. Immediately thereafter, defendant fatally stabbed Telesforo. Several hours after defendant committed the murders and departed from the crime scene, two of his acquaintances, Greg Rambo and Larry Tom Whittington, returned to the apartment and concealed the victims' bodies inside a bedroom dresser. Defendant and Rambo transported the dresser containing the bodies out of Kern County to the town of Shandon, located in San Luis Obispo County, entombing the dresser beneath a layer of fresh concrete in the yard behind Rambo's residence. 2

Although no physical evidence was discovered linking defendant to the Bautista murders, several of his acquaintances testified that he confessed committing the crimes to them prior to his arrest in March of 1985. The defense focused upon impugning the credibility of these witnesses. Defendant did not present an alibi defense, nor did he testify.

I. GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE
A. The prosecution's case

1. Overview

The prosecution's case rested largely on evidence that defendant had, on numerous occasions, confessed his participation in the crimes to acquaintances with whom he had been involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine. According to the prosecution, defendant killed Maureen Bautista because he feared she would "snitch him off" regarding his involvement in methamphetamine manufacturing, and killed her son, Telesforo, because Telesforo had witnessed defendant's lethal attack on his mother. In support of its case, the prosecution presented numerous witnesses who testified to defendant's intense hatred of "snitches" (persons who report illegal activities to third persons) and to defendant's frequent comments, both before and after the Bautista murders, to the effect that "snitches die."

2. Defendant's methamphetamine manufacturing activity, and his relationship to the victims

Greg Rambo's surviving spouse, Susan Rambo (who was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony), provided important testimony regarding the principal elements of the prosecution's case. She described defendant's methamphetamine manufacturing activity, which began during the summer of 1984 in a small trailer located behind the Shandon residence that she shared with her husband, Greg Rambo. The trailer was located unobtrusively amidst dog kennels and old, discarded automobiles. The rural, unassuming setting was well suited to the covert operation of a methamphetamine laboratory. Defendant had met the Rambos through a mutual acquaintance, Larry Tom Whittington.

The participants in the drug operation maintained well-defined roles. Susan Rambo served as a lookout. Defendant was the "cook," the person who mixed the chemicals to prepare the methamphetamine (a product that also was referred to by certain witnesses as "speed" or "crank.") Larry Tom Whittington financed the trailer laboratory, provided necessary supplies, and sold the finished product. Greg Rambo cleaned up after the "cook" and also served as a lookout. According to Susan Rambo, Whittington paid her husband, in cash and with methamphetamine, for the use of the trailer.

According to numerous witnesses, defendant frequently "freebased" (i.e., smoked) cocaine. His profit in manufacturing methamphetamine consisted chiefly of a ready supply of cocaine from Larry Tom Whittington. According to Susan Rambo, Whittington "would supply the cocaine for [defendant], deduct what they owed him for the cook ... and gave [defendant] money when he needed it."

Susan Rambo testified that defendant prepared his first batch of methamphetamine in the trailer laboratory in August 1984, and prepared four to six subsequent batches that year. Each batch required two to three days to prepare, during which time, according to her, defendant stayed awake, smoking his cocaine pipe. She said defendant freebased cocaine frequently, regardless whether he was manufacturing methamphetamine, and rarely was without cocaine for more than four or five days, when Larry Tom Whittington would replenish defendant's supply.

Larry Tom Whittington, testifying on cross-examination, substantially confirmed Susan Rambo's account of defendant's work habits and cocaine usage, stating that defendant stayed awake throughout each multi-day "cook," and that defendant consumed "a couple of ounces [of cocaine] a week, at least," an expense that, according to Whittington's estimate, cost defendant approximately $4,000 each week. Harlyn Codd testified (on cross-examination) that defendant "could put away an ounce of coke freebasing a day if he had it with him." 3

Linda Rich, a friend of Maureen Bautista, testified that in the year preceding Bautista's murder, Bautista and defendant had a stormy relationship, punctuated with numerous arguments. She recalled one such quarrel, in April or May of 1984, in which she went to the door of the Bautistas' apartment (which was open, although the screen door was closed), heard the sound of dishes breaking, and observed that a telephone had been "pulled out." On cross-examination, Rich acknowledged that defendant had been kind to Telesforo and had purchased gifts for him, but also that defendant freebased cocaine in the boy's presence.

At the end of August or the beginning of September of 1984, the Bautistas joined defendant, Larry Tom Whittington, and Harlyn Codd on a fishing trip at Lake Isabella. Codd overheard an argument between Maureen Bautista and defendant, in which defendant threatened to kill Maureen because she planned to "snitch" (on the drug operation participants) to Eddie Nash whom, according to Susan Rambo, defendant considered to be his enemy. 4 Susan Rambo testified that Codd had told her Nash was Telesforo's father; also, that Nash once had paid defendant to fulfill a contract but that defendant had failed to perform and, as a result, Nash was "looking for" defendant.

3. The "Nash testimony"

Over defendant's objection, the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce the testimony of several witnesses to establish a connection between defendant and Eddie Nash, who was a convicted drug dealer. By this evidence, the prosecution sought to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses that defendant knew Nash, in order to demonstrate that defendant reasonably might have harbored a great fear of Nash because of Nash's violent reputation and prior criminal activities, and generally to support the evidence, noted above, that indicated defendant murdered Maureen Bautista because he feared she would inform Nash of defendant's whereabouts and his drug manufacturing activities.

4. The Bautista murders: defendant's conduct, confessions, and threats

On September 4, 1984, Maureen and Telesforo Bautista registered at a Bakersfield motel. The motel manager testified that he recalled seeing defendant that afternoon on the premises. On the evening of September 6, Telesforo prepaid in cash for that night's lodging. At a later point that evening, or in the early hours of the next morning, defendant and the Bautistas moved to an unoccupied Bakersfield apartment rented by Patricia Shepard. 5

Defendant telephoned Larry Tom Whittington near midnight on September 6, asking Whittington to meet him at Shepard's apartment immediately. When Whittington arrived, defendant said he and Maureen Bautista had been arguing loudly at the motel and had been concerned someone would call the police, so he and the Bautistas had moved to Shepard's apartment. Defendant told Whittington he was afraid Maureen was planning to "snitch him off" to Eddie Nash or Nash's attorney; defendant's fear stemmed from his belief that Nash was scheduled to be released from prison the following day. When Whittington asked defendant where the Bautistas were, he said they were sleeping in the bedroom. Whittington did not see them, nor did he hear any sounds emanating from the bedroom. He noticed the telephone appeared to have been ripped from the wall.

When Whittington awoke at his Bakersfield residence the next morning, September 7, to the sound of knocking, defendant entered and announced, "I did it.... I killed them." Defendant told Whittington that Maureen Bautista "was going to snitch me off [and] I know how to take care of snitches." When Whittington asked defendant to lower his voice so Shepard would not hear the conversation, defendant replied that Shepard should hear what had happened, because the deaths had occurred in her apartment. She thereafter joined the conversation. Both Whittington and Shepard testified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
503 cases
  • People v. Mani
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 2021
    ...they heard." For this argument, he relies on two cases published before the enactment of section 1109.In People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664, disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166, th......
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2007
    ...emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues."' [Citation.]" (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 178; see also People v. Killebrew (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) " `In applying section 352, "prejudicial" is not synonymous w......
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...stipulation if the effect would be to deprive the state's case of its persuasiveness and forcefulness.'" (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 182, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664, disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117-118, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3......
  • People v. Bedolla, H044681
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2018
    ...the applicability of CALCRIM No. 404 by referring the jury to the "number 400" set of instructions. ( People v . Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 189, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664 [parties’ closing arguments diminished any possibility of confusion about conspiracy instruction], disapproved......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Photographs, recordings and x-rays
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...despite the fact that it might generate sympathy, because the showing insured the accuracy of the testimony. People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 140, 181, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664. The position of mummified bodies in a dresser corroborated a witness’ testimony on concealment, and the position o......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...283 Cal. Rptr. 128, §§2:20, 2:30 Gann, People v. (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 994, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 208, §9:100 Garceau, People v. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 140, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664, §§9:40, 9:120, 13:30 Garcia v. ConMed Corp. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 144, 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665, §21:140 Garcia v. Sup......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...making a final ruling, you must raise the issue before the statement is admitted or the objection is forfeited. People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 140, 177, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664. For in limine motions generally, see Ch. 1. B. Exceptions §9:50 Overview An out-of-court statement offered to p......

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