People v. Hawkins
Decision Date | 10 January 1978 |
Docket Number | Cr. 30630 |
Citation | 143 Cal.Rptr. 106,76 Cal.App.3d 714 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Lee HAWKINS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Paul Halvonik, State Public Defender, Charles M. Sevilla, Chief Asst. State Public Defender, Richard A. Curtis, Joseph Levine, Deputy State Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen. Crim. Div., Daniel J. Kremer, Karl J. Phaler, Cecilia H. Johnson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Appellant and his brother sadistically murdered their 75 and 79 year old grandparents. The appeal is from a judgment convicting appellant of two counts of murder and two counts of grand theft; one count of murder and the grand theft convictions were ordered merged with the remaining count of murder.
The Attorney General's summary of the facts suffices as a background:
On Monday evening, March 1, 1976, appellant Robert Hawkins (hereinafter Hawkins) and his brother Michael went to visit their grandparents Cleo and Pearl Hawkins at their house at 9907 Saticoy. Cleo and Pearl were 79 and 75 years old respectively.
Hawkins became angry at comments Pearl made. He called her into the bathroom telling her the toilet was overflowing. As she entered the room, he grabbed her and they fell to the floor. Hawkins tried to choke her. Michael took Hawkins' knife from his belt and cut Pearl where Hawkins told him to. Hawkins then took the knife and cut Pearl's throat. Pearl, however, continued to make noises so Hawkins put a cloth over her face to try to stop the sounds.
Cleo was in bed and called for Pearl. Hawkins went to him, shook his hand, said goodbye, then grabbed him. Hawkins beat on Cleo's chest hoping to bring on a heart attack. Using the same knife used on Pearl, one of the brothers cut Cleo's throat. Using another knife, Hawkins tried to stab him in the stomach. The knife only bent. Cleo continued to breathe so Hawkins put rags around his neck and face.
Hawkins washed up the bathroom and then the brothers searched the house for money. They took all the money they could find as well as two Masonic rings. Hawkins found the keys to their grandparents' car in Pearl's purse. Hawkins and Michael left around 1:00 a. m. and drove the car to Sambo's Restaurant.
The two men were arrested in Lancaster in their grandparents' car four days afterward. A knife; its sheath; and a belt found with the men had bloodstains of the victims' type. Coins and a ring belonging to one of the victims was also recovered in the car. En route to the Los Angeles police station, Sergeant Gastaldo, the transporting officer, told appellant that he would not discuss the case. 1 However, appellant said: Following his arrival at the North Hollywood station, appellant made a full confession after a concededly adequate Miranda warning was given.
Prior to the commencement of the prosecution's case-in-chief, a pretrial hearing was held concerning the voluntariness of appellant's confession. The trial court denied appellant's suppression motion finding that appellant's statement to Gastaldo in the police car was spontaneous and further finding that he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. However, the trial court did not indicate whether its findings on the voluntariness of appellant's statements were based on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard or on a finding that the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's sole contention re the confession is that the latter standard should have been applied and that, in view of some uncertainty in the law which of the two standards applies, 2 it cannot be presumed that the trial court decided the issue in light of the "reasonable doubt" test.
Both counsel agree that the question of the proper standard is now before the California Supreme Court in People v. Jimenez, Crim. 20125 (hearing granted August 12, 1977). It is also conceded that the California Courts of Appeal have been following Lego (see footnote 2). (People v. Moreno (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 688, 692-693, 132 Cal.Rptr. 569; People v. Barrow (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 984, 990, 131 Cal.Rptr. 913; People v. Hutchings (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 16, 19, 106 Cal.Rptr. 905.)
We set forth the trial court's discussion of the evidence on the issue of voluntariness in its entirety:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Superior Court
...Cal.3d 812, 819, 103 Cal.Rptr. 431, 500 P.2d 7; cert. den. 1973, 410 U. S. 939, 93 S.Ct. 1401, 35 L.Ed.2d 605, People v. Hawkins (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 714, 720, 143 Cal.Rptr. 106; People v. Jentry (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 615, 627, 138 Cal.Rptr. 250.) Moreover, petitioner was also charged with h......
-
People of Territory of Guam v. Ibanez
...in which the victim was left. The photographs are therefore probative of the element of malice. See also, People v. Hawkins, 76 Cal.App.3d 714, 720, 143 Cal.Rptr. 106, 109 (1978) (photographs showing the manner in which victims were killed, the condition of the bodies when police arrived, a......