People v. Gaulden

• Decision Date: 09 January 1974
• Docket Number: Cr. 6684
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey P. GAULDEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 803

111 Cal.Rptr. 803

36 Cal.App.3d 942

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey P. GAULDEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6684.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Jan. 9, 1974.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by Gregory W. Baugher, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.

James Larson, San Francisco, and Brian G. Glick, Berkeley, for defendant and appellant.

REGAN, Associate Justice.

In an indictment filed in the County of Sacramento, defendant was charged with the crime of murder. The jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

On August 30, 1971, a Mr. Randle was hired by Folsom Prison as a laundry supervisor. After a week of orientation, he began his duties in the laundry and was working there on September 16, 1971. Another 'free man,' a Mr. Turner, was also working in the laundry on that date. Defendant, an inmate at Folsom, was assigned to the pressing room and worked there on September 16, 1971.

At about 12:20 p.m. on September 16, a laundry truck came to the back of the laundry area and Turner went there to supervise the unloading. Randle remained at the front door of the laundry room checking out inmates from the laundry area. As he was checking out the inmates, another inmate, whom Randle was unable to identify, came by and said there was a disturbance in the back of the laundry room. Randle detected a note of urgency in the inmate's voice.

Randle immediately proceeded to the back of the laundry. Enroute he heard a series of screams and thought they were emanating from the sock room. As he entered the door to the sock room he noticed Turner lying on the floor. An inmate was bending over Turner, straddling his prone body, and withdrawing his hand from the area of Turner's chest. Randle observed blood on the front of Turner's chest. He saw no one else in the area.

Randle came to an immediate halt just a few feet inside the door to the sock room. The inmate straddling Turner looked up at Randle who was able to identify him as the defendant. Randle had participated in a discussion earlier that day between Turner and the defendant relating to the defendant's attempt to obtain a job as a clerk for Randle. At that time Turner had explained to defendant that Randle already had a clerk.

When defendant saw Randle, he got up and began to approach him. Randle noticed that defendant was carrying in his hand a dull instrument which appeared to be between seven and ten inches long and had a dull, red color. Randle became frightened and ran out of the laundry room into the yard to summon help.

Randle ran to the yard shack and spoke with two correctional officers and told them what had happened. As they were talking, Turner staggered around the side of the laundry building and collapsed. A guard stationed in a nearby guard tower thought he saw Turner stagger from the laundry followed by an inmate. Prison personnel attempted to assist Turner, and he was carried to the hospital where he subsequently died. During this time Turner said nothing more than 'help me.'

An associate warden, Randle and several officers secured a key to the laundry room (which had automatically locked) and gained entrance to the building. At this point Randle identified defendant as Turner's assailant.

When the officers entered the laundry, the defendant was not among the inmates remaining there. No weapons were found in the room during the subsequent search. There was a trail of blood leading from the sock room to the truck docking area.

While the search of the building was being conducted, Sergeant Cox was outside searching the inmates prior to their being returned to their cells. Cos had been advised that defendant was responsible for the stabbing incident. While conducting the search, Cox noticed defendant come around the corner of the bleacher area in the recreation yard, and move into a line of inmates. Defendant was then removed from the line and taken to the custody office. Sergeant Cox noticed what appeared to be blood stains on defendant's pants and socks.

During the afternoon of September 16, another search was made of the laundry area where an officer discovered a wadded up shirt in the sheet bin. In the pocket of the shirt was a medical slip with defendant's name on it. Defendant's laundry number was stamped on the front of the shirt, and the officer observed what appeared to be blood on one of the sleeves.

A search of the grounds revealed a knife located on a ledge above the showers near the weight lifting area of the yard. There appeared to be stains on the blade portion.

Blood stains found on defendant's clothing and on the blade of the knife were compared with that of the deceased and were found to be of the same blood type.

The cause of death was determined to be a stab wound to the left lung. However, there were multiple other wounds.

The defense called only one witness, a tower guard. He testified he saw an unidentified inmate come out from the laundry area behind Turner with his hand stretching out. Defense counsel asked the officer if it appeared the inmate was helping Turner, but the prosecutor's objection to this question on the ground that it called for a conclusion was sustained.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct, Sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. (See People v. Hood (1969), 1 Cal.3d 444, 49, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370.)

It is reversible error to refuse a manslaughter instruction in a case where murder is charged and the evidence would warrant a conviction of manslaughter. (People v. Carmen (1951), 36 Cal.2d 768, 773--774, 228 P.2d 281.) It is also well established that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on general principles of the law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence even though not requested to do so. (People v. Noah (1971), 5 Cal.3d 469, 478, 96 Cal.Rptr. 441, 487 P.2d 1009.) The defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence. (People v. Modesto (1963), 59 Cal.2d 722, 730--731, 31 Cal.Rptr. 225, 382 P.2d 33.)

To paraphrase Carmen, the issue presented by defendant's contention is whether there is any evidence Deserving of any consideration whatever which might tend to prove manslaughter and not murder as charged, and thus would have required an instruction on manslaughter. (People v. Carmen, supra, 36 Cal.2d at p. 773, 228 P.2d 281.)

The decisive distinction between murder an manslaughter is the presence of malice aforethought. (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) and 192.) A trial court need not instruct on manslaughter where the evidence indicates a no lesser crime than murder in the first degree. (People v. Duren (1973), 9 Cal.3d 218, 236--237, 107 Cal.Rptr. 157, 507 P.2d 1365.) People v. Williams (1969), 71 Cal.2d 614, 624, 79 Cal.Rptr. 65, 70, 456 P.2d 633, 638 is apropos, 'there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to support an inference that Kretchman unlawfully provoked defendant. The defendant chose not to testify and provide direct evidence. Adequate provocation as an element of voluntary manslaughter must be affirmatively demonstrated; It cannot be left to speculation. Under these circumstances the voluntary manslaughter instruction was properly refused.' (Emphasis added.)

In this connection, the defendant contends on this appeal that there was a violent quarrel between defendant and Turner prior to the actual slaying. He claims that provocation for the ensuing fight resulted from Turner's refusal to grant defendant's request to be a laundry clerk for Rendle. He also points out the multiple wounds on Turner as indicating circumstantial evidence of a preliminary heated quarrel, thus negating malice.

Such argument is a flight into fantasyland, or as Justice Peters stated in Williams, supra, 'speculation.' (71 Cal.2d at p. 624, 79 Cal.Rptr. 65, 456 P.2d 633.) There is nothing in the record to support any showing of a lengthy struggle, or more importantly any evidence of provocation upon the part of Turner, prior to the time Randle went to the sock room and observed defendant withdrawing a knife from the prone body of Turner. The number of wounds inflicted upon Turner's body, if anything, constitute circumstantial evidence of malice upon defendant's part. (See People v. Brawley (1969), 1 Cal.3d 277, 295, 82 Cal.Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361.) Furthermore, defendant suffered no wounds and was not assigned to the sock room. And the rhetorical question arises as to why defendant was armed with a knife. Turner's rejection of defendant as a laundry clerk for Randle may explain the killing, but it hardly established that Turner taunted defendant to a point where defendant killed him in a sudden 'heat of passion.' (See Pen.Code, § 192.) Defendant's contention is sheer conjecture. (People v. Williams, supra; see People v. Morse (1969), 70 Cal.2d 711, 736, 76 Cal.Rptr. 391, 452 P.2d 607.)

Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because the was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

The general principles relating to adequacy of defense counsel are well known. In People v. Reeves (1966), 64 Cal.2d 766, 774, 51 Cal.Rptr. 691, 695, 415 P.2d 35, 39, the court states: 'To justify relief on the ground of constitutionally inadequate representation of counsel, "an extreme case must be disclosed' (Citations.) It must appear that counsel's lack of diligence of competence reduced the trial to a 'farce or a sham.' (Citations.)' (People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 866, 386 P.2d 487, 490.) Defendant has the burden, moreover, of establishing his allegation of inadequate representation 'not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality.' (Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269, 281, 63 S.Ct. 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (143 A.L.R. 435); accord, People...