People v. Gilbert

Decision Date15 December 1965
Docket NumberCr. 8690
Citation63 Cal.2d 690,408 P.2d 365,47 Cal.Rptr. 909
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 408 P.2d 365 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse James GILBERT and Robin Charies King, Jr., Defendants and Appellants.

Hugh R. Manes, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Erling J. Hovden, Public Defender (Los Angeles), J. Stanley Brill and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendants and appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

TRAYNOR, Chief Justice.

Defendants were convicted on two counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189), one count of first degree robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 211a), and four counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen.Code, § 209). On each count of first degree murder, defendant King's penalty was fixed at life imprisonment and defendant Gilbert's penalty was fixed at death. (Pen.Code, §§ 190, 190.1.) The trial court sentenced King to prison for the term prescribed by law on all counts and sentenced Gilbert to death on the two murder counts and to prison on the remaining counts for the term prescribed by law. King appeals from the judgment of conviction. Gilbert's appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

Shortly after 10:30 a. m. January 3, 1964, defendant Gilbert and Edgar Ball Weaver entered an Alhambra savings and loan association office, hereafter referred to as a bank, wearing hats and sunglasses. Gilbert, armed with an automatic pistol, shouted, 'Everybody freeze; this is a hold- up.' He threw a paper shopping bag with the name Alpha Beta on it one of the tellers and told her to fill it with money. Weaver, armed with a revolver, stood by the door and kept the bank covered while Gilbert forced an accountant to open the vault and directed the senior teller and the controller to open compartments inside. After obtaining only a box of rolled coins from the vault, Gilbert retrieved the shopping bag and began to fill it with money from the tellers' drawers.

Alhambra Police Officer George Davis, who had been alerted to the robbery, entered the bank with a shotgun and disarmed Weaver. Gilbert then grabbed a woman teller and pushed her toward the door, pointing his pistol at her head and warning Davis: 'Drop that gun and back off or I'll shoot the woman.' Davis backed toward the front door, saying, 'No, you won't; you will never shoot.' Officer Billy Edward Nixon then arrived at the bank in police car and saw Officer Davis backing out of the front door with a shotgun. As Gilbert followed Davis out of the bank, he pushed the woman toward Davis and fired, mortally wounding Davis. Weaver picked up his revolver and followed Gilbert out of the bank. As they fled, Officer Nixon shot and wounded Weaver.

Gilbert and Weaver escaped in a white automobile. A witness gave the license number to Officer Nexon, and several bystanders directed him as he pursued the automobile. Several blocks from the bank a man ran up to Officer Nixon and told him that two men who seemed to be trying to get away from something left a white automobile and entered another white automobile and continued north on Granada. Officer Nexon found an unoccupied white automobile with the license number that had been given to him parked facing north on Granada. Farther north on the same street he saw a green automobile that had run over the curb and crashed into a tree. Weaver was inside, semiconscious and bleeding, with a revolver on the seat beside him. Weaver died in the hospital later that evening from a bullet that had entered his back.

Law enforcement officers questioned defendant King about the robbery twice on January 5, two days after the robbery, and again on January 10, when he came to the Alhambra police station pursuant to a request. On each occasion he denied knowledge of the robbery. The San Gabriel police arrested him on February 7, and on February 11 took him to the Alhambra police station. Upon being told that he was being booked on charges of murder, robbery, and kidnaping, King became very talkative and began to disclose his participation in the robbery. A police officer told him to wait until booking had been concluded before making any statements. He was taken into an interrogation room and during a seven-hour session gave detailed statements about his participation in the robbery.

King told the officers that he met Weaver at a parole meeting. Although he refused to help Weaver rob a 'bookie joint,' he later accepted Weaver's offer of $100 to steal an automobile. On the morning of January 3, 1964, King stole a white automobile and drove it to Los Feliz and San Fernando Road. A friend followed in King's own white automobile. Gilbert and Weaver arrived in a green automobile at 10:00 a. m., and King and his friend followed them to Alhambra. Gilbert and Weaver parked the green automobile and took the stolen automobile. For $1,000 King agreed to wait for them and to drive Gilbert back to Glendale.

After leaving his friend at a bowling alley, King waited for Gilbert and Weaver. When they returned, Weaver, who was bleeding badly, got into the green automobile, and Gilbert got into King's automobile with a shopping bag. Gilbert put a .45 automatic pistol against King's stomach and threatened to kill him unless he did what he was told.

King drove to Gilbert's apartment in Glendale. On the way, Gilbert told King that he and Weaver had robbed a bank. He said that when a policeman entered the bank he used a woman as a hostage and forced the policeman to back out the door. He shot the policeman and fired two shots at another officer who was sitting in a police car. Gilbert said, 'I have killed one cop today, and I will kill a lot more before I am through.' He also said that he thought that Weaver got in his line of fire and that he had accidentally shot Weaver.

When they arrived at Gilbert's apartment, King waited with the shopping bag while Gilbert obtained a key from the manager. After Gilbert changed clothing, he offered King $1,000 to drive him to Salt Lake City. When King refused, Gilbert came toward him holding a pillow. King heard a click and realized that a pistol under the pillow had misfired. He begged for his life, and, after a few moments, Gilbert said that he was not going to kill him. Gilbert gave King $1,300, and they left the apartment. King waited while Gilbert returned the key to the manager. They drove to an alley where Gilbert threw his .45 automatic pistol into a garbage can. They went to a bar, and, shortly after Gilbert met a woman friend, he allowed King to leave.

King's statements were admitted into evidence at the trial on the issue of guilt. He contends that they were erroneously admitted over his objection.

Incriminating statements are inadmissible if they were obtained when '(1) the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but had begun to focus on a particular suspect, (2) the suspect was in custody, (3) the authorities had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements, (4) the authorities had not effectively informed defendant of his right to counsel or of his right to remain silent, and no evidence establishes that he had waived these rights.' (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 179, 398 P.2d 361, 371; Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.)

King's statements were admitted in violation of this rule. When King made them he was in custody and the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but had focused upon him. When the police took him into the interrogation room shortly after 3:00 p. m. on February 11, their purpose was to elicit incriminating statements. A short time after the interview began a tape recorder was started without King's knowledge. At 10:00 p. m. King was asked to make a formal tape recording for use in court. When he refused to do so he was asked to dictate a statement to be used in court. King said that he would make a statement, but that he would not sign it until he had advice from an attorney. At no time was he advised of his right to counsel or of his right to remain silent. 1 Accordingly, the statements should have been excluded.

The Attorney General contends, however, that King's statements were not obtained by a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements since King began voluntarily to disclose his participation in the robbery before he was asked any questions and before he was taken into the interrogation room. We do not agree with this contention. The statements that were introduced at the trial were not spontaneous, unsolicited declarations but detailed statements obtained through a period of prolonged interrogation.

In People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 578, 43 Cal.Rptr 201, 400 P.2d 97, we pointed out that in most cases an interrogation following an arrest will lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements. (See also People v. Bilderbach, 62 Cal.2d 757, 761-762, 44 Cal.Rptr. 313, 401 P.2d 921.) When King made his statements he was not only under arrest but had been in custody for four days. He had been interrogated three times previously concerning the robbery. When the police formally charged him with murder, robbery and kidnaping, the accusatory stage had been reached. When they took him into the interrogation room, their purpose was to elicit incriminating statements, and they had a duty to advise him of his constitutional rights.

In People v. Cotter, 63 A.C. 404, 410, 416, 46 Cal.Rptr. 622, 405 P.2d 862, and People v. Jacobson, 63 A.C. 335, 345, 347, 46 Cal.Rptr. 515, 405 P.2d 555, we held that the fact that a defendant is willing to confess and has already volunteered incriminating statements and confessions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
202 cases
  • People v. Fields
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1983
    ...to capital punishment from the guilt trial did not deny the defendant a fair and impartial jury. (People v. Gilbert (1965) 63 Cal.2d 690, 711-712, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365; People v. Smith (1966) 63 Cal.2d 779, 789, 48 Cal.Rptr. 382, 409 P.2d 222; People v. Thomas (1967) 65 Cal.2d 698......
  • People v. Spencer
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1967
    ... ... Page 165 ...         [424 P.2d 717] [66 Cal.2d 160] Joseph M. Rosen, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant ...         Stanley Mosk and Thomas C. Lynch, Attys. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert F. Nelson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent ...         TOBRINER, Justice ...         The jury found defendant guilty of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen.Code, § 209) and of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189), and fixed the penalty at death ... ...
  • People v. Ray
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 1967
    ...Cal.Rptr. 305, 423 P.2d 233; People v. Smith (1966) 63 Cal.2d 779, 789, 48 Cal.Rptr. 382, 409 P.2d 222; People v. Gilbert (1965) 63 Cal.2d 690, 711--712, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365; People v. Whitmore (1967) 251 A.C.A. 364, 369, 59 Cal.Rptr. 411; People v. Miller (1966) 245 A.C.A. 111, ......
  • People v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1984
    ...a conscious disregard of human life, or malice. (Id., at p. 782, 44 Cal.Rptr. 442, 402 P.2d 130; People v. Gilbert (1965) 63 Cal.2d 690, 703-705, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365; 2 Taylor v. Superior (1970) 3 Cal.3d 578, 91 Cal.Rptr. 275, 477 P.2d 131.) They assert that it was Belvin's act o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Defenses and special evidentiary charges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 4, 2021
    ...but to the intentional act of the defendant or his accomplice, committed with conscious disregard for life. See also, People v. Gilbert , 408 P.2d 365 (Cal. 1965), rev’d on other grounds , Gilbert v. California , 388 U.S. 263 (1967). The result (except for “capital” feature) would have been......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 4, 2021
    ...1993, no pet.) 1:290 Penry v. Lynaugh 492 U.S. 302 (1989) 6:430 - P - C-35 Table of Cases Name Citation Court Section People v. Gilbert 408 P.2d 365 (Cal. 1965) 3:100 Peoples v. State 548 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) 1:30 Peoples v. State 566 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 197......
  • THE RAGE AGAINST THE FELONY MURDER RULE TRAP WHEN JUVENILES ARE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER IN CO-FELON KILLINGS.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 83 No. 3, March 2020
    • March 22, 2020
    ...a felony murder conviction was proper when a burglary escapee drove recklessly and killed two people). (190) See, e.g., People v. Gilbert, 408 P.2d 365, 368-69 (Cal. (191) See Tory A. Weigand, Tort Law--The Wrongful Demise of But For Causation, 41 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 75, 83, 90 (2019). (192......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...have reason to believe that the suspect is inside the place to be entered. White, 183 Cal.App.3d at 1207-08; see People v. Gilbert (1965) 63 Cal.2d 690, 706-07, vacated on other grounds, Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263. For a discussion of this standard, see "Entering home to make......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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