People v. Huizenga
| Decision Date | 26 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5035 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HUIZENGA. |
Elvin F. Sheehy, Public Defender, and Clarence H. Pease, Sacramento, for appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Doris H. Maier, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Edward Albert Huizenga was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and has been sentenced to death. On this appeal from the judgment under Penal Code section 1239(b), the sole issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction.
On January 18, 1949, the body of a male person was taken from the American River east of the Jibboom Street bridge in Sacramento County. The body was headless, clothed only in a suit of underwear, with the legs tied together at the ankles with a piece of sash cord. Fingerprint records established the identify of the body as that of Arthur Paulson. On January 24th, the decapitated head was found, and the identity of the body confirmed. The county autopsy surgeon, Dr. Wallace, performed autopsies on the torso and head. On the right side of the head there were multiple small fractures of the bones radiating in several directions. One piece of the temporal bone about an inch long had been driven into the brain, presumably by a dull object. Dr. Wallace testified that death had been caused by laceration of the brain, subdural hemorrage, and the multiple fractures of the skull.
On January 20th defendant was found living in a tarpaper shack that had been owned and occupied by the decedent. Defendant stated, in answer to questions before trial and while testifying on his own behalf, that he had known Arthur Paulson since September, 1948, when they met while picking tomatoes. They camped together east of the Jibboom Street bridge until about the first of November. At that time, they separated and went to different parts of the state where harvesting was in progress. Defendant said that he returned to Sacramento County about December 15th. He pitched camp in the same area that Paulson and he had occupied during September. The morning of December 17th defendant met Paulson, who invited him to move to the shack that Paulson had constructed from tarpaper and wooden poles. Defendant did not stay with Paulson that night but moved in with him the following day, December 18th. Paulson slept on a bunk, and defendant slept on boxing board laid on the dirt floor.
Defendant testified that Paulson went into Sacramento on December 21st to obtain a lamp for his shack. This testimony was corroborated by the witness Doucet, a neighbor in the camp area, who met Paulson in Sacramento about noon. Paulson was on his way back to the cabin with the lamp. He was in good humor and did not speak of leaving the vicinity. There is no evidence that he was seen alive thereafter except by defendant.
Defendant testified further that when he returned to the shack early in the afternoon, after trying unsuccessfully to find work, Paulson was already there cooking. He looked upset and acted queerly. When defendant inquired what was wrong, Paulson told him that 'on the way home he had been strong-armed and robbed of $50.00'. Paulson told defendant that he would not be in Sacramento the next day, that he was going to Ventura for work. That night defendant and Paulson read the newspapers and retired around 8 or 9 o'clock.
Early the following morning, December 22nd, defendant awoke when Paulson was building a fire. Paulson made up his bedroll containing his blankets, a suit of underwear, and cooking utensils and tied the roll with sash cord. Defendant asked Paulson if he was going to store his property. Paulson said he was going to take what he wanted and told defendant: 'You can have what I leave.' Paulson had certain items of property belonging to one William Allen that he told defendant to leave with Doucet if defendant left before Allen returned.
Later in the day defendant saw Doucet and told him that Paulson had been strong-armed the previous afternoon and that $50 had been taken from him. Defendant told Doucet that Paulson had gone to Ventura and that he took his bedroll and his clock, leaving everything else for defendant. Doucet visited defendant at the shack around 11 o'clock that morning. He observed that a suit of Paulson's underwear was on the line and that defendant was slicing bacon that had belonged to Paulson. Defendant said that Paulson had left all his food for defendant. Doucet observed defendant later constructing a latrine near Paulson's shack, about 100 feet from Doucet's.
On the same day defendant visited the cabin of Eugene Belanger in the same area. He had not previously spoken to Belanger. He told him substantially what he had told Doucet concerning Paulson's being robbed, becoming disgusted, and going to Ventura. The following day, defendant passed Belanger's camp with a rifle and gunny sack and told Belanger that he was going hunting. Belanger thought this odd because the day was foggy and 'you couldn't see fifteen feet ahead of you.' Belanger testified, however, that the fog lifted around noon.
Doucet testified that two or three days after December 22nd, he observed defendant taking some of Paulson's clothes and a suit case out of the camp area. Defendant told Doucet that he was going to put them in storage. The records of Bill's Second-Hand Store in Sacramento, however, show, and defendant admits, that on December 23rd, he sold certain articles belonging to Paulson. Defendant used the assumed name, James Owens, and gave the address 1515 Fourth St., Sacramento, where he had previously resided. On December 29th, he sold a shirt of his own to the same store under the same assumed name.
On or about December 24th, Doucet observed defendant burning straw that he had taken from the bunk in the cabin. He replied to Doucet's questioning that he was burning it because the mice had been making nests in it. Defendant replaced the straw with three sofa cushions that he had purchased after Paulson's disappearance.
Early in January, 1949, Earl King and two others constructed a cabin in the Jibboom Street jungle area about 100 feet from the one occupied by defendant. While they were building, defendant went to them and told them that the land was 'private property or leased property.' King replied that he had as much right there as anyone else. Defendant said then, 'Well, if you are going to build down here, be sure and use my latrine,' and from then on, King and his companions did so. On January 18th, King discovered the headless body, later identified by fingerprints as that of Paulson, floating in the American River near the camp area.
On January 20th, three deputy sheriffs went to Paulson's shack then occupied by defendant. When they questioned him about Paulson, defendant explained Paulson's departure as he had previously to Doucet and Belanger. The officers found a small caliber rifle, a small hatchet, and some sash cord rope in the shack.
On January 21st, the deputy sheriffs returned to the jungle area to search for the head of the body. Their attention was directed to the latrine that defendant had constructed on the day that, according to his testimony, Paulson had left for Ventura. After digging into the latrine about two feet, they discovered a folded pair of dark trousers; a foot lower they discovered a large bundle of clothing in an olive green tarpaulin. The bundle included a large green blanket, sleeping bag, dark coat, red checkered shirt, glove, and a large blanket. These were identified by William Allen as the property of or similar to the property of Paulson.
The officers also removed two sheet blankets from the bunk in the cabin, and pieces of wood from the bottom and headboard of the bunk, which were marked with reddish stain. A clinical laboratory technologist, Roy B. Johnson, Jr., testified that the stains on the tarpaulin, the coat, and plaid shirt taken from the latrine, and the two blankets from the bunk, were human blood. Johnson found blood on the sleeping bag and blanket taken from the latrine but was unable to determine whether it was human blood. David Q. Burd, a criminologist of the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation, testified that the small hatchet found in the shack on January 20th, the pieces of wood taken from the bunk, another hatchet owned by Paulson, and a hammer left with Paulson by Allen had blood of unknown origin on them. He testified that the block of wood taken from the headboard of the bunk had human blood on it. Dr. Wallace, the autopsy surgeon, testified that the blade of the small hatchet fitted 'almost perfectly' the wounds on Paulson's neck. He testified also that the hammer part of the hatchet could have been used to cause the fractures of the skull.
At the time defendant was questioned on January 21, 1949, he was asked to tie a knot in the sash cord found in the decedent's cabin. The knot that he tied was similar to the knot in the rope around the ankles of the decedent's body.
Defendant was first tried in April, 1949, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tolbert
...that he was the perpetrator thereof. (People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692, 702, 44 Cal.Rptr. 30, 401 P.2d 382; People v. Huizenga, 34 Cal.2d 669, 675(1), 676(3), 213 P.2d 710.) The district attorney was entitled to introduce evidence of burglary and rape in support of his theory under the felo......
-
People v. Kramer
...in favor of the verdict. (See People v. Robillard, 55 Cal.2d 88, 93, 10 Cal.Rptr. 167, 358 P.2d 295, 83 A.L.R.2d 1086; People v. Huizenga, 34 Cal.2d 669, 676, 213 P.2d 710.) The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. (See People v. Saterfield, 65 Cal.2d 752, 7......
-
People v. Hillery
...of the crime charged and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator thereof. (People v. Huizenga (1950) 34 Cal.2d 669, 675(1)-676(3), 213 P.2d 710; People v. Alcalde (1944) 24 Cal.2d 177, 180-184(1), 148 P.2d 627.) Moreover, 'It is the trier of fact, not the appellat......
-
People v. Love
...reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.' People v. Huizenga, 34 Cal.2d 669, 676, 213 P.2d 710, 713; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d Although defendant evidently hoped for a reconciliation with his wife,......