People v. Hill

Decision Date09 April 1969
Docket NumberCr. 11316
Citation76 Cal.Rptr. 225,452 P.2d 329,70 Cal.2d 678
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 452 P.2d 329 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Douglas HILL, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert L. Fitzpatrick, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and fixed the penalty at death. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, and a motion to vacate the order denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was also denied. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

Facts: Phyllis Jane Black, the victim, and her husband, Richard James Black, lived at 11780 Encino Avenue, Granada Hills, in Los Angeles County. They had been married about two years and were expecting their first child. On August 3, 1966, when Mr. Black returned home from work about 7:10 p.m. he found his wife's dead body in the hallway. He usually entered the house by unlocking the front door with his key. The front door was open about six inches. There was no evidence that the house had been forcibly entered. On the kitchen sink were a glass and an ice cube tray of water. Mr. Black estimated that his wife had between $30 and $50 in cash. Her purse and wallet, which were on a desk in the front hall, contained no bills.

Mrs. Black's dress was torn and pulled up around the neck. Her brassiere and panties were near her legs. There was a welt around her throat, which, in the opinion of the police, was caused by her garment having been rolled up and used as a ligature to strangle her. There was evidence of a struggle in the hallway, as some of the curlers in Mrs. Black's hair were compressed into the carpeting, and there was a lipstick stain on the carpet between her shoulder and the wall.

The autopsy revealed that death was caused by strangulation by means of a ligature, such as a rope or cloth tied around the neck. The vaginal and anal canals contained the fluid of human semen, and the coroner testified that an act of intercourse and sodomy had taken place either shortly before or after her death. In the opinion of the coroner, Mrs. Black had been dead at least three hours and could have been dead as long as five or six hours before 7 p.m. Mr. Black testified that he had not had intercourse with his wife within 24 hours prior to finding her body.

A dermatologist had been treating Mrs. Black for a rash on the soles of her feet and palms of her hands and had prescribed Castellani's Paint, a peeling agent that causes the outer layer of skin to flake off. The paint, a deep lavender color, was to be applied to the affected area every night. Mrs. Black's left heel was discolored with lavender.

When defendant was booked, his clothing was vacuumed for debris. From the area of his pants from the knee to the waist around the fly, debris similar in color to the discoloration on the victim's heel was found. Upon analysis, a criminologist determined that the debris was keratinized epithelial, the outer cells of the skin in a dried callous condition, of the same material and discoloration as the skin of Mrs. Black's heel.

The Black residence was situated at the end of the street at a cul-de-sac. The house is set back about 150 feet from the street, with a driveway between the Schmid house on the right and the Green house on the left of the driveway entrance. Mrs. Schmid left her house by car at 1:15 p.m. to take her children for a swimming lesson from 1:30 to 2:15 p.m. Shortly after their return, she saw a man outside the window in front of her house, walking down the cul-de-sac coming from between the Green and Black houses. He was dressed in dark trousers and a white shirt that was 'bloused out.' His trousers were low-slung, and his dark blond hair was messy. She went outside to see where he was going. By this time she could see him from the waist up; he wasn't running but was moving fast. That evening she told the police about having seen the man. She said the time was 2:50 p.m. because she looked at the clock when she got home. The following evening she picked defendant out of a lineup as resembling the man who walked by her window. She identified him at the trial, noting that he was thinner and paler than when she had first seen him.

Defendant's palm prints matched those found in the hallway of the Black house. A policeman assumed the position of Mrs. Black's assailant on the hallway floor, and it was demonstrated that the palm prints on the wall could not have been made from a standing position. A policewoman assumed a face-down position on the hallway rug, and the area of her mouth fit the lipstick stain on the rug.

Mr. and Mrs. Black had a stereo unit installed in their living room by the House of Sight and Sound, which had been delivered by defendant and another employee about the middle of July 1966. Their house was equipped with an intercom system and the Blacks were not interested in installing external speakers for the stereo.

In addition to other publicity, the August 4, 1966, edition of the Los Angeles Times, some of which editions were on the streets on August 3, and the final morning edition that was on the streets during the early morning hours of the 4th carried publicity about the murder, but no mention was made of fingerprints having been found. Neither did the August 4 edition of the Herald-Examiner distributed in the morning mention fingerprints. The night final of the Herald-Examiner, which came out about 1:45 in the afternoon, carried the following paragraph for the first time: 'Numerous fingerprints were discovered at the scene. Friends and relatives will be asked for fingerprint examples in order to eliminate innocent prints from among evidence, police said.'

About 6 p.m. on August 4, 1966, Lt. Gillen of the Los Angeles Police Department who was in charge of the investigation of Mrs. Black's murder, received a call from defendant, saying that he had been at the Black residence on August 3 to service a stereo and had been in several rooms in the house. He was requested to come to the station for the purpose of giving his fingerprints and a statement. After giving his name and address, he said that he was employed by the House of Sight and Sound in Van Nuys as a T.V. and stereo repairman and had been with them about five months. On August 3 he had about eight service calls to make in the Van Nuys area, and decided to make an unsolicited complimentary service call on Mrs. Black, whose stereo he had delivered some 30 to 60 days earlier. He parked his company's Ford Econoline panel truck in front of the driveway to the Black house and the one next to it. He got there about 1 p.m. Mrs. Black admitted him. She was wearing a blue muu-muu and had curlers in her hair. He serviced the stereo by adjusting the knobs, and Mrs. Black mentioned installing remote speakers in the master bedroom from the stereo set. They went to the bedroom, where they discussed placement of the speakers. After five or six minutes he asked her if he could use the bathroom, and she directed him to the one near the front door. After coming from the bathroom, he looked down the hall and saw Mrs. Black in the kitchen and asked for a drink of water. She gave him some water in an old fashioned glass, took an ice tray out of the refrigerator, and put ice in his drink. He had a second glass of water, and after further discussion about the weather he walked down the hallway to the front door and told Mrs. Black that if she was interested in external speakers to call him.

Lt. Gillen asked defendant if there was anything else he wanted to tell them, and defendant said, 'Yes. I want you to know that I did get an undesirable discharge from the Army for a charge arising over a burglary' that involved a tavern in Montecito. 1

When defendant mentioned his involvement in a burglary, Lt. Gillen, knowing that money was missing from Mrs. Black's purse, gave defendant the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Thereafter he questioned defendant further about his activities on August 3, and a recorded statement was taken by Lt. Gillen and Sgt. O'Donnell. Defendant said his company had not sent him on a service call to the Blacks. It suddenly occurred to him to go there because he was in the vicinity, and he remembered Mrs. Black because she was such a vivacious person. He also thought it would enhance his image with the company to perform a complimentary service for a customer. When asked where his fingerprints might be found, defendant did not mention that he might have placed his hands on the wall in the hallway, nor did he mention any activity in the hall. He was asked if he noticed anything in the hallway, and replied that he recalled seeing a woman's purse lying on the table but did not recall the color other than it was dark.

He said he left the Black residence about 1:30 p.m., stopped at a root beer stand, and drove to his next call at 22308 Park Street in Newhall, arriving about 2 or 2:05. He was there about 30 minutes and then returned to Sight and Sound between 3 and 3:30. He unloaded his truck, did a little paper work, was sent out on another call to Studio City, came back to the shop about 5 p.m., and was picked up by his wife at 5:30 p.m.

Other testimony showed that defendant was at the Park Street address in Newhall at 3:08 p.m. A 14-year-old girl, who was visiting her sister and brother-in-law at that address, was watching a T.V. program when defendant approached and turned off the program at that time. The timing was substantiated through a representative of a local T.V. station who was required to keep a station log of programs at that time. The driving time from the Black residence to the Park Street...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • People v. Pena
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1972
    ...the trial to a "farce or a sham." (People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487; People v. Hill, 70 Cal.2d 678, 689, 76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329.) Although the best criterion of the competency, care and alertness of the attorney referred to is said to be the recor......
  • People v. Beagle
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1972
    ...it cannot be said that the trial was reduced to a sham or a farce or that a crucial defense was withdrawn. (People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 689, 76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329; People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464--466, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487; People v. Mattson (1959) 51 ......
  • People v. Terry
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1970
    ...standards enunciated in Witherspoon. (People v. Floyd, 1 Cal.3d 694, 83 Cal.Rptr. 608, 464 P.2d 64; People v. Hill, 70 Cal.2d 678, 701, fn. 3, 76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329; cf. People v. Tolbert, 70 Cal.2d 790, 809, 76 Cal.Rptr. 445, 452 P.2d This is not a case where the venireman answere......
  • People v. Dyer
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1988
    ...of discretion on such motion, each case must be judged from its own factual background. [Citation.]" (People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 698, 76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329.) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new 2. Ineffective Assi......
  • 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