People v. Glatman, Cr. 6420
| Decision Date | 05 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6420 |
| Citation | 52 Cal.2d 283,340 P.2d 8 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Harvey Murray GLATMAN, Appellant. |
Willard Whittinghill, San Diego, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On the evening of October 27, 1958, defendant was taken into custody when a motorcycle officer traveling on a side road in Orange County discovered him struggling with Lorraine Vigil for possession of a gun which he had used in an unsuccessful attempt to force her to submit to sexual intercourse. After his arrest defendant confessed that he had killed three women, Judy Dull, Shirley Bridgeford and Ruth Mercado, and he was indicted in San Diego County for the murders of Shirley and Ruth. He pleaded guilty to both counts and waived a jury trial with respect to the degree of the crimes and the penalty. A psychiatrist appointed by the court reported that defendant was sane and that he was able to cooperate fully with his attorney in the presentation of his case. Evidence was received on the issues of degree and penalty, and as to each count the court found defendant guilty of first-degree murder and fixed the penalty at death. The appeal from the judgment is before us automatically pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 1239 of the Penal Code.
The statements of defendant, in which he confessed to the two killings with which he was charged, were recorded, and they were received in evidence after a foundation was laid showing that the confessions were made freely and voluntarily, that there had been no promise of reward or immunity, and that no force or violence had been used. A review of the record shows that defendant received a fair and impartial trial, and the evidence in support of the judgment is overwhelming as to both counts.
In March 1958 defendant obtained the name of Shirley Bridgeford from a 'lonely hearts club.' He telephoned her, giving a false name, and made an appointment to meet her on Saturday night at her home in Los Angeles. Defendant said his purpose was to have sexual intercourse with her, either with consent or by force, and he was prepared to kill her to avoid arrest if he had to use force. He called for her in his car, and, after driving south for a couple of hours, they parked off the highway. Defendant tried to persuade her to have intercourse, and when she refused he showed her a gun and said he would not use it if she obeyed him. She then submitted to him, and while they were still parked he reached the conclusion that he would have to kill her for his own safety. He drove southeast to a desert area in San Diego County where they stopped until the sun came up. In his confession defendant said that he decided to kill Shirley in the same way that he had previously killed Judy Dull. He had persuaded Judy to pose with her hands and feet tied by telling her that he wished to take some pictures sutiable as illustrations for mystery stories, and he killed her while her hands and feet were bound. Similarly he used a desire for pictures as an excuse for tying Shirley's hands and feet without alarming her. After taking several pictures of Shirley, he fastened a rope to the cord around her ankles, pulled it so as to bend her knees, put his knee at the small of her back, looped the rope twice around her neck and pulled as hard as he could for five minutes or so until there did not seem to be any sign of life. At various places on the way back to Los Angeles he threw away Shirley's purse and its contents except about 30 cents in coins, which he kept.
In July 1958 defendant saw a newspaper advertisement stating that Ruth Mercado was available for employment as a model. He called on her in the evening, ostensibly to discuss terms of employment but actually intending to have intercourse with her. When Ruth admitted him to her apartment, he took a gun from his pocket and ordered her to go to her bedroom, where he tied her hands and ankles and gagged her. He then investigated to see how...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tahl, Cr. 9960
...penalty. That is this case.' (See also People v. Terry, 61 Cal.2d 137, 145--147(4a), 37 Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381; People v. Glatman, 52 Cal.2d 283, 286(2), 340 P.2d 8.) In the present case, evidence of the dying declarations would clearly have been admissible at a trial on the guilt issu......
-
People v. Jones
...defendant's background and history, and of any facts in aggravation or mitigation of the penalty.' (Emphasis added.) See People v. Glatman, 52 Cal.2d 283, 340 P.2d 8. The law also requires (Pen.Code, § 1192) that, upon a general plea of guilty to an offense divided into degrees, the trial c......
-
People v. Lopez
...since no objection thereto was made at the trial and the defendant cannot now question the propriety of its admission. (People v. Glatman, 52 Cal.2d 283, 286, 340 P.2d 8.) One contention remains for consideration. The defendant Lopez asserts that the trial court should have granted his moti......
-
People v. James
...* * 19 and 57.' Moreover there was no objection to the questions. People v. Feldkamp, 51 Cal.2d 237, 241, 331 P.2d 632; People v. Glatman, 52 Cal.2d 283, 286, 340 P.2d 8. The jury could infer, in spite of his denials, that appellant did have a wallet in his hand in 1959, and the prosecutor ......