People v. Hooper
| Citation | 216 P.2d 876,35 Cal.2d 165 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5038 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HOOPER. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Frank Loria, Modesto, for appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Doris H. Maier, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Defendant Henry Hooper pleaded guilty to the charge of murdering Mrs. Lilly Calvert. The trial court determined that the murder was of the first degree (see Pen.Code, § 1192) and specified death as the punishment (see Pen.Code, § 190). On this automatic appeal from the judgment we have concluded that no ground for reversal or modification appears.
Defendant's principal contention is that there is insufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation (the only theory upon which the murder could be of the first degree). Defendant himself did not take the stand and the only evidence on this crucial question is the following testimony as to his behavior:
Defendant and Mrs. Calvert had known one another for at least two months (the precise length of time does not appear) preceding the killing. He had been a frequent visitor at her home. Mrs. Calvert lived with her two sons, Hurley, aged 14, and Bobby, who was younger. Mrs. Calvert once said that she and defendant planned to marry; later on she told defendant that she did not want to see him again because she objected to his excessive drinking.
About 5:30 p. m. on February 10, 1949, the day of the killing, Mrs. Calvert had a telephone conversation with defendant, in the course of which she told him not to come to her house. What defendant said to her in this conversation does not appear. Mrs. Calvert at once telephoned the police; this call was made at 5:42 p. m. There is no evidence of what she reported, but an officer was sent to her home 'to investigate.' Before the officer arrived defendant came to the Calvert home and, without knocking or requesting admission, forced open the screen door, which was hooked, and the wooden door, which was secured with a bolt latch; these doors led into the kitchen. Defendant said, 'I just want to show you my check.' Mrs. Calvert replied, 'I don't want to see the check.' The police officer who had been sent to the Calvert home then arrived. Mrs. Calvert pointed out the door fastenings which defendant had broken and told the officer that 'she didn't want to have charges made against him; she said she would like to be as nice to him as she could, but he wouldn't leave her alone * * * She said, 'All I want Henry to do is leave my house.' * * * (Defendant) said, 'O. K., I will leave, I will leave with the policeman. " The officer 'told him not to come back to the house any more' and the two men left together.
At about 6 p. m. defendant again came to the door. Mrs. Calvert, Bobby, Hurley and a neighbor, Mrs. Mary Perry, were present. Defendant knocked and Bobby admitted him. Mrs. Perry described defendant's second visit as follows: Defendant walked toward Mrs. Calvert; 'I stepped between, I thought if he did anything to her I would try to keep him from hurting her * * * (H)e kind of was crying and talking (and) he says 'you mistreat me, you mistreat me, you and Mrs. Perry you mistreat me,' and I says 'no, Henry, I don't do anything to you' and he kept on, he was just like he was crazy or something, he kept coming and when he got to her he caught both of us and grabbed both of us just like that (indicating), like sombody going crazy; I says 'I haven't done anything Henry, I wouldn't do anything to you * * *. " Mrs. Calvert said to defendant, Defendant replied, 'This is not your house, you can't demand me to stay out of this house because it is none of yours.' (Mrs. Calvert rented the house from Mrs. Perry.) Mrs. Perry said, After further urging by Mrs. Perry defendant left. She walked with him to the alley. He said, 'Mrs. Perry, I will promise you I won't put my foot back on this place again,' and went down the alley. Mrs. Perry returned to the Calvert home. She repaired the damaged door fastenings and told the children not to admit defendant if he returned. In about 15 minutes defendant again knocked at the kitchen door and identified himself. Mrs. Perry said, Defendant replied, 'I want my radio.' Both Mrs. Perry and Mrs. Calvert said, 'The law will give you the radio tomorrow' and urged defendant to leave. Defendant again broke open the screen door. He battered down a panel of the wooden door, saying nothing, while Mrs. Perry was 'pleading with him not to tear the door open.' Defendant pointed a shot gun through the broken panel at Mrs. Calvert. The two boys seized the barrel of the gun and urged him not to shoot. They were unable to deflect the barrel and defendant shot Mrs. Calvert as she went from the kitchen into the living room. Hurley telephoned the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ward
...as in a case in which the defendant pleads not guilty (People v. Kerr (1957) 37 Cal.2d 11, 15, 229 P.2d 777; see People v. Hooper (1950) 35 Cal.2d 165, 169, 216 P.2d 876). Thus where a defendant, after a plea of guilty, has confined his appeal to the propriety of proceedings to determine th......
-
People v. Deloney
...that the killing was the result of deliberation and premeditation. People v. Gilliam, 39 Cal.2d 235, 239, 246 P.2d 31; People v. Hooper, 35 Cal.2d 165, 168, 216 P.2d 876; People v. Isby, 30 Cal.2d 879, 888-890, 186 P.2d Defendant contends that the instruction on deliberation and premeditati......
-
Finney v. Lockhart
... ... 337, 269 P. 705, and Plotnik v. Rosenberg, 55 Cal.App. 408, 203 P. 438; see also Farvour v. Geltis, 91 Cal.App.2d 603, 205 P.2d 424; Booth v. People's Finance & Thrift Co. of Modesto, 124 Cal.App. 131, 144, 12 P.2d 50. But these cases also state that there is no fixed ratio by which to determine ... ...
-
People v. Jennings
...case, so it is the finding of this Court at this time this defendant is guilty of Murder in the First Degree.' In People v. Hooper, 35 Cal.2d 165, 169, 216 P.2d 876, 878, the trial court referred to the hearing in a murder case as one 'in mitigation of punishment' and the appellant argued t......