People v. Hayes

Decision Date31 December 1990
Docket NumberNo. S004421,S004421
Citation802 P.2d 376,276 Cal.Rptr. 874,52 Cal.3d 577
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 802 P.2d 376 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Blufford HAYES, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 22477.

Page 884

Richard Such, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Palo Alto, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edmund D. McMurray and William G. Prahl, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.

KENNARD, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b); all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.) Defendant Blufford Hayes, Jr., was convicted by a jury of one count each of robbery (§ 211), burglary (§ 459), and first degree murder (§ 187). The jury found as special circumstances that the murder was committed in the perpetration of both robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and it found that defendant used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of each offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)).

We shall reverse the conviction and sentence for robbery, and the robbery-murder special circumstance, but otherwise shall affirm the judgment, including the imposition of the death penalty.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The body of Vinod Patel, the resident manager and half owner of the Rice Motel in Stockton, was found on the floor of one of the motel rooms. Patel's body was bound with coat hanger wire; he had been stabbed to death. The motel's office, as well as the adjoining living quarters for the manager, had been ransacked. The missing items included cigarettes and cash. Testifying in his own behalf at trial, defendant admitted killing Patel but maintained that he did so only after being assaulted by Patel.

A. The Prosecution's Case

On January 1, 1980, defendant's sister, Barbara Lord, was living in room 15 of the Rice Motel. She had spent the previous night in the room drinking and talking with defendant and others. Defendant was alone in the room when Lord left the motel that morning. He was wearing a dark blue three-piece suit and a light blue, long-

Page 885

sleeved shirt. He usually carried a small leather shoulder pouch or bag. Lord saw Vinod Patel before she left; he called a cab for her. She may have asked him to repair the leaky sink in room 15's bathroom.

Bearla Mae Wyatt, another resident of the Rice Motel, went to the motel office about 9:30 a.m. There she saw defendant complaining to Patel about a problem with "water going everywhere" in the bathroom. Patel did not seem to understand defendant's explanation; he invited defendant to demonstrate what he meant in Patel's own living quarters. Wyatt left the office; when she returned 10 to 15 minutes later, defendant and Patel were coming out of Patel's bathroom area. Patel told defendant he would come to defendant's room later.

On that same morning Michele Gebert, who lived at the Rice Motel with Andrew James, was awakened by knocking at her door. Upon opening the door she found defendant, wearing a dark blue suit coat and matching pants but no shirt or vest. There were wet spots on the suit coat. Defendant seemed to be nervous; he told Gebert he wanted James to give him a ride. Gebert awakened James, who went into the bathroom. Defendant said something about having "ripped the office off," but he told Gebert not to worry about Patel reporting it because Patel "would not say anything to anybody." Defendant left with James.

About 30 minutes after she had last seen Patel with defendant, Wyatt looked out the window of her room and saw defendant carrying a box across the motel parking lot to a car. James was standing on the opposite side of the car as defendant walked toward it.

When James got into his car with defendant, he saw in the backseat two boxes, each containing thirty cartons of cigarettes. Defendant said he had to leave and urged James to "hurry up." James observed that the back of defendant's right hand was swollen, "like he had been in a scuffle." James noticed dark stains on defendant's suit jacket; defendant remarked that he had to take the suit off. Defendant asked to be taken to his mother's house. James inquired, "What's happening?" Defendant said he had "offed" Patel because Patel woke him up and because Patel "swung on him." Defendant said he had torn up the motel office looking for money and had found 22 or 23 $1 bills. James later saw approximately that many $1 bills in defendant's possession when defendant paid James $3 for gas. James asked defendant if he had left fingerprints; defendant said he "used something" so as not to leave any. Defendant asked if James knew where to get rid of the cigarettes; James said he did not.

James drove defendant to his mother's house and helped him unload the cigarettes onto the front porch. James drove straight back to the motel, noticing as he arrived that the door of the motel office was open. He looked in and saw cigarettes on the floor. James left again in the car with Gebert; later that day, after hearing news reports on the radio, they contacted the police to report their observations.

When Lord returned to room 15 that afternoon, she found Patel lying on the floor in front of the doorway, his hands and feet bound with coat hanger wire. Lord tried without success to awaken Patel. After noticing the blood from his wounds, Lord ran from the room and asked another motel resident to call the police.

Police officers, who arrived at the scene about 1 p.m., determined that Patel was dead. In room 15 they found: a light blue, long-sleeved shirt and a dark blue vest, both stained with blood; a leather shoulder pouch containing an empty sheath for a fixed-blade knife; and two items, a wine bottle and a paper bag, that bore defendant's fingerprints. The walls and floor of the bathroom were spattered with blood. The motel office and adjoining manager's living quarters appeared to have been ransacked: drawers had been pulled out, mattresses had been removed from beds, a lamp was on its side, and various items were strewn about. The cash drawer, which normally contained $40 to $50, had been pulled out and was empty. The normal stock of approximately 40 cartons of

Page 886

cigarettes was gone. A hunting knife found in the living quarters fit the sheath found in the shoulder pouch in room 15.

The blood types of defendant and Patel were determined and found to be identical. Blood on the dark blue vest, the light blue shirt, and the hunting knife was consistent with this blood type. The blood on the shirt was on the outside of the cuff.

An autopsy revealed that Patel had received at least twenty-two cutting and stabbing wounds, including three stab wounds that penetrated the heart and three that penetrated the lungs. Some of the wounds appeared to be defensive: slashing wounds to the left palm and forearm and a stab wound that went through the left hand. The wounds had been caused by a fairly heavy instrument with one sharp and one square edge, consistent with the hunting knife found in the manager's living quarters. The coat hanger bindings did not leave marks on the body; it appeared the victim had not greatly resisted the binding and may have been unconscious or even dead at the time. Death occurred at approximately 10 a.m., give or take an hour, and was caused by massive internal bleeding due to multiple stab wounds. The wounds probably incapacitated the victim and rendered him unconscious in one or two minutes, and death probably ensued in five to fifteen minutes.

Defendant was arrested in Oregon a few weeks later. When interviewed there by Sergeant Wingo on January 23, 1980, defendant said he had left his sister's room at the Rice Motel between 3 and 3:30 a.m. on January 1 and had not returned.

B. The Defense Case

On December 27, 1979, Patel had asked the police to arrest defendant for trespassing. Patel reported that defendant had been renting a room but had stopped paying rent and had been involuntarily checked out of the motel. Defendant had then broken into his former room on each of the preceding five days. Officers investigating the complaint found defendant in his former room. Defendant admitted breaking into the room but said he intended to pay as soon as his girlfriend brought him some money. There were fresh needle marks on defendant's arm and he appeared to be under the influence of an opium derivative, probably heroin. Judging by the needle marks or "tracks" on defendant's arm, one of the officers, who was an expert in such matters, concluded that defendant was probably a heroin addict. Defendant declined to discuss his narcotics usage. He was arrested for trespassing and for being under the influence of a controlled substance.

Defendant testified in his own behalf. He said that at times he had used as much as $100 worth of heroin per day but that at the end of December 1979 he was an occasional user. He had also been injecting Ritalin for six to seven months. On December 27, 1979, he was under the influence of heroin and Ritalin. He did not break into a room; because he had not paid any rent for a couple of days, he reentered his room by a window when he returned to find a lock on the door.

Defendant was awake for the three nights immediately preceding New Year's Eve. He spent New Year's Eve in the company of his sister, Barbara Lord, his brother, Robert Hayes, Bearla Wyatt, and an unnamed friend. Defendant injected himself with heroin about 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on December 31 and again about 3 a.m. on January 1. Appellant injected Ritalin about midnight. He also drank some brandy.

On the morning of January 1, defendant went to the manager's office and told Patel that the water would not shut off in the sink in his sister's room. Patel asked defendant to turn the water off underneath the sink and said he would come later that day to fix it. After purchasing a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
617 cases
  • Dominguez v. Trimble
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 21 Mayo 2012
    ...for adopting it. Rather, the risks and disadvantages must be considered in light of the available alternatives." (People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 624.) We cannot say counsel's performance fell below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, even though appellant ......
  • People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Octubre 2009
    ...jury findings to determine whether the failure to instruct was prejudicial. (People v Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 642.) In People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 98-99, our Supreme Court set forth the harmless error analysis applicable to this c......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 1 Febrero 2021
    ...a peremptory." ( Armstrong , supra , 6 Cal.5th at p. 770, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 105, 433 P.3d 987 ; see, e.g., People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 604, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.)The trial court made a sincere and reasoned effort " ‘to evaluate the nondiscriminatory justifications offered......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 2022
    ...to use the other-crimes evidence to establish defendant's character or his disposition to commit crimes." ( People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 625, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.) Defendant also contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly arguing falsely in the guilt and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...to fabricate. It is not required that the statement be made before the existence of all such biases and motives. People v. Hayes , Cal. 802 P.2d 376, 276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 52 Cal. §5.401 Former Testimony Testimony that has been recorded by an official court reporter for preservation has been ......
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2015
    ...5-100 It is not required that the statement be made before the existence of all such biases and motives. People v. Hayes , Cal. 802 P.2d 376, 276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 52 Cal. 3d 577 (1990). CEC 1291 sets forth the requirements for using former testimony against a party to the prior proceeding, w......
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Testimonial evidence
    • 31 Julio 2017
    ...to fabricate. It is not required that the statement be made before the existence of all such biases and motives. People v. Hayes , Cal. 802 P.2d 376, 276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 52 Cal. 3d 577 (1990). CEC 1291 sets forth the requirements for using former testimony against a party to the prior proce......
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...to fabricate. It is not required that the statement be made before the existence of all such biases and motives. People v. Hayes , Cal. 802 P.2d 376, 276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 52 Cal. 3d 577 (1990). CEC 1291 sets forth the requirements for using former testimony against a party to the prior proce......
  • 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