People v. Gilliam

• Citation: 39 Cal.2d 235,246 P.2d 31
• Decision Date: 09 July 1952
• Docket Number: Cr. 5300
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GILLIAM.

Page 31

246 P.2d 31

39 Cal.2d 235

PEOPLE v. GILLIAM.

Cr. 5300.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

July 9, 1952.

Floyd H. Hyde and Alfred Thomas, Fresno, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wallace G. Colthurst, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SHENK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment imposing the death penalty and from the order denying a motion for a new trial.

On August 30, 1951, the defendant, known as 'Red', was in the county jail in Firebaugh because of intoxication. On September 1st he was released to work as a flagman at road construction. He worked during the morning. At noon and during the afternoon he drank some wine and beer. Later he consumed a small amount of food at a cafe and drank more beer. He testified that a Mexican in the cafe beckoned him to the rest room where he gave the defendant a Marijuana cigarette. After taking one or two puffs he claimed to have 'blacked out' and did not remember anything of the events that followed.

Some time between 8:00 and 8:30 that night the Chief of Police saw the defendant and said he should be taken into custody. The defendant, 35 years of age and weighing about 212 pounds, was known to cause trouble after consuming intoxicating liquor. He was placed in a jail cell with three men, Leyva, Saccum, and Paul Self, the decedent. When the officers locked the door the defendant went to the aperture and cursed them. He then turned his attention to the men in the cell. He took Leyva's hand saying 'You are my friend, huh?' Levya complained that the defendant was too stout and that his handshake hurt. Defendant shook hands with Saccum who objected for the same reason. He 'messed' with Leyva and again with Saccum who remarked that he was ruptured. He pushed them around for a while, twisting one's head, the other's arm, throwing one into a bunk and out again, until Saccum said that he was sick and asked to be let alone. The defendant then noticed Self, who was lying in the lowest bunk, and ordered him to get out. There was no response and the defendant pulled him out with the blankets. Self offered no physical resistance, but calling him 'Red' said he had done nothing and not to hit him. The defendant struck him several times to that his head fell against the wall about eighteen inches above the floor. The defendant invited him to get up, calling him a name. Saccum told him the man was unconscious and couldn't get up. The defendant suggested that Saccum shut his mouth or he'd get some of it. He again bothered Saccum and Leyva alternately until asked to desist. The defedant then returned to Self and continued kicking him, Saccum repeatedly asking him to stop but being told to 'shut up.' At some point the defendant picked up Self and dropped him on the floor, the head striking first. At another he kicked Self in the face with his heel, tore the flesh, and displaced an eye. He picked him up, held his feet apart and kicked him in the groin. Finally when gurgling sounds indicated the last of Self, the defendant sat down and ordered Saccum to pull off his shose which were wet with blood. Saccum complied. These activities occupied considerably more than an hour. At about 10:15 p. m. they heard a car and Saccum stated that he thought the 'cops' were coming. The defendant rolled into a bunk telling them to say nothing or they'd get the same treatment. The officers came in and remarked 'it looks like we have a dead man here.' They handcuffed 'Red' who exclaimed that if the man wasn't dead he would finish him off. He was then taken to Fresno county jail where he refused to make a statement, saying that he supposed they would 'fry' him but corrected himself to indicate that in California it would be 'gas.' An autopsy on the decedent revealed that death ensued from shock and hemorrhage caused by multiple fractures to the skull and torso.

On his arraigment the defendant was informed as to his legal rights and requested counsel. Attorneys Floyd H. Hyde and Alfred Thomas were appointed. The defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Trial was had on each issue and consumed eight trial days. On the issue of not guilty the jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree without recommendation; and on the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity he was found to have been sane at the time the offense was committed.

The defendant moved for a new trial on the statutory grounds or for reduction of the degree of the crime on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to indicate that he had the requisite intent to justify a verdict of first degree murder. The motion was denied.

No contention is made that the verdict of sanity is unsupported by the evidence.

On the issue of guilt the record does not support the contention that the defendant suffered a blackout in the nature of a psychomotor or psychic seizure. Facts concerning his background and the results of laboratory tests were put in evidence. The defendant was born in Arkansas. His mother died when he was two years of age and he was raised by grandparents on a farm. He attended school to the sixth grade at age 13, having repeated some grades. His father remarried several times. Accidents indicate two head injuries, one of which occurred while he was in the army. He claims to have suffered a four-day blackout in 1946. He married. He has a history of addiction to alcohol which increased after marital difficulties developed. He joined the army to get away from them, was sent overseas but was discharged for habitual drunkenness. An electroencephalograph examination and reading, a laboratory test used in the practice of neurology, indicates at most a borderline abnormal, but does not show a major disorder.

The defendant contends that there is no evidence of premeditation or of facts sufficient to show a purpose to torture or to perpetrate mayhem ( § 189, Penal Code), which would justify the verdict of first-degree murder. He relies on People v. Tubby, 34 Cal.2d 72, 207 P.2d 51, to indicate that the elements of torture were not present. He contends that the evidence shows that he was in a psychic seizure or in a fighting mood brought on by an intoxicated condition; that his primary purpose was not to cause suffering, to put out an eye, or to kill, but only to play or fight with the other men in the cell. He also contends that death did not occur in the perpetration of mayhem because there is no evidence that the victim was alive when he kicked him in the face.

There is sufficient evidence to support the jury's implied finding that the defendant was not suffering from a temporary amnesia or from any condition or disorder which prevented him from having the requisite malice and intent. There was no provocation for his conduct and the circumstances attending the killing showed an abandoned and malignant heart together with a consciousness of guilt which supports the verdict. People v. Isby, 30 Cal.2d 879, 890, 186 P.2d 405. This is further emphasized by testimony that only when the victim stopped breathing did the defendant desist in his efforts and that on his arrest he offered no resistance but admitted his guilt freely. The record supports the jury's...