People v. Hunter

Decision Date07 December 1989
Docket NumberC,Nos. S004613,s. S004613
Citation264 Cal.Rptr. 367,782 P.2d 608,49 Cal.3d 957
Parties, 782 P.2d 608 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Wayne HUNTER, Defendant and Appellant. rim. 23630.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
[782 P.2d 610] Frank O. Bell, Jr., and Harvey Zall, State Public Defenders, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Roy M. Dahlberg, Deputy State Public Defender, and Cynthia A. Thomas for defendant and appellant

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dane R. Gillette and Gerald A. Engler, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

KAUFMAN, Justice.

Michael Wayne Hunter appeals (Penal Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) 1 from a judgment of death following his conviction of the murders (§ 187) of Jay and Ruth Hunter. The jury also found true the allegation that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of the murders (§ 12022.5), and the special circumstance allegation that defendant was convicted, in this proceeding, of more than one murder. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) Having found no error warranting reversal of the guilt or penalty phase verdicts, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. Prosecution Case

On the evening of December 28, 1981, Jay and Ruth Hunter, defendant's father and stepmother, were shot to death in the bedroom of their home in Pacifica. The events surrounding their death, as revealed through the evidence and testimony at trial, were as follows.

In November 1981, about a month before the homicides, defendant told his friend, Thomas Henkemeyer, of plans to kill his father and stepmother. According to Henkemeyer, defendant laid out several scenarios for possible alibis, including taking out a hiking permit in Yosemite National Park and then returning to commit the murders, or going down to San Diego where friends would purportedly provide an alibi. Based on earlier conversations with defendant, Henkemeyer concluded that defendant's motive for the planned killings was to take "revenge" for a number of perceived grievances; these included an incident in which his stepmother had reported defendant for breaking into his parents' home while they were away on vacation, and his stepmother's handling of his natural mother's will, which defendant believed resulted in his being cheated of his inheritance. Defendant also discussed possible methods of transporting and concealing a rifle or shotgun.

Several weeks later, between December 12th and 14th, defendant brought a shotgun and shells to Henkemeyer's residence in Sacramento. Defendant told Henkemeyer that he planned to use the shotgun to kill his parents during the spring or summer of 1982. Defendant left the shotgun and shells with Henkemeyer.

Shortly thereafter, on December 20th, Henkemeyer left Sacramento to spend the Christmas holidays with his family in Minnesota. Before he left, he drove his car, a brown Toyota Corolla, to defendant's house in Mountain View for safekeeping.

He gave defendant the keys to the car and the keys to his residence in Sacramento.

About a week later, on the evening of December 28th, a neighbor of Jay and Ruth Hunter was awakened by a loud "bang or shot" from the direction of the Hunter residence. He heard four more shots in quick succession. On or about the same evening in late December, Philip Eldred was walking two dogs a short distance from the Hunter residence when he encountered a man wearing a leather jacket and a motorcycle helmet. For no apparent reason the man told Eldred to leave the area. Eldred refused. In response, the man pointed a long object (which Eldred then realized was a shotgun) at Eldred's face, kicked him in the thigh and retreated behind a cyclone fence several feet away. He then fired a shotgun blast in Eldred's direction, entered a small, burgundy-colored car parked nearby, and drove away. Eldred stated that the man appeared to be in his early twenties and of medium build. Defendant was 23 at the time of the offenses.

Later the same evening, defendant's roommate, Jeffrey Hansen, was watching television when defendant walked through the front door. According to Hansen, defendant immediately showed him his left arm, which was cut between the wrist and elbow, and explained that he had tripped on the front porch, dropped a six-pack of beer and cut himself.

The bodies of Jay and Ruth Hunter were discovered the following day, December 29, 1981, after the police were alerted that the front door of the residence was wide open and a window on the side of the door was broken out. The police found both bodies in the master bedroom. The body of Jay Hunter was on the bed; that of Ruth Hunter was lying against the far wall, on top of the telephone receiver. Eight expended shotgun casings were found on the floor. Autopsies revealed that Ruth Hunter had died of two shotgun wounds to the head, either of which was sufficient to cause death. Jay Hunter had suffered four shotgun wounds. One shot to the upper chest that had apparently caused death was fired from a distance. Three other shots, to the neck, abdomen and left knee, had been fired from much closer range and were consistent with having been inflicted where the victim lay.

During the next several days, Henkemeyer, still in Minnesota visiting his family, received two telephone calls from defendant. In the first call defendant told Henkemeyer that he had killed his mother and father and was trying to decide what to do. During the second call, a day or two later, defendant said that he had spoken with a lawyer and was preparing to leave the country. He also indicated that he had been seen by a stranger after the killings but doubted that an identification could be made because he was wearing a helmet. When Henkemeyer returned home to Sacramento on New Year's Day, he found that the shotgun defendant had left was missing.

Around the same time period defendant also spoke with his friend Jefferson Schar. Defendant told Schar that his parents had been killed and that he had "a lot to do with it." Defendant told Schar, however, that he had merely accompanied another, unidentified man who had actually committed the murders. Defendant described to Schar the events immediately preceding the shooting. He said that he had entered the house, awakened his father and told him that his entry proved he could "get to [him] at any time." His father responded: "You don't have the balls enough to do anything of that nature." Defendant became angered and told the unidentified gunman to "go ahead and shoot him." The gunman complied. His mother awakened, said, "No, Mike, don't," and the gunman shot her too.

The day after his conversation with Schar, defendant told Henkemeyer that he was trying to leave the country and asked him to sell some of his belongings. At defendant's request, Schar drove defendant to San Jose airport. On the way, defendant stopped at a barbershop and had his beard and moustache shaved off. Defendant asked Schar to obtain a phony birth certificate for him under the name John Luther received a telephone call from defendant on January 3, 1982. The two arranged to meet at a restaurant in San Ysidro, near the Mexican border. At the restaurant, defendant told Luther that he was "wanted for murder" and explained the circumstances of the shootings. Defendant said that he had entered his parents home carrying a shotgun and wearing a motorcycle helmet. He confronted his father and threatened to shoot him. His father responded, "[Y]ou don't have the balls." In response, defendant told Luther, he "pumped four slugs into him."

Dunne. At the airport defendant purchased a ticket to San Diego under a false name. While waiting for the flight, defendant again told Schar that he was involved in the killings but was not the shooter. He explained that after the incident he had disposed of the murder weapon by breaking it into pieces and throwing it into the bay. Defendant said that he planned to contact a friend named Jeffrey Luther in [782 P.2d 612] San Diego and instructed Schar to forward the phony birth certificate to him there.

Following the conversation in San Ysidro, Luther saw defendant again in a hotel in Las Playas, Mexico. Luther agreed to purchase some items for defendant. After the meeting in Mexico, however, Luther contacted the police, who advised him not to meet defendant again in Mexico but rather to lure him back across the border. Accordingly, Luther arranged to meet defendant at the restaurant in San Ysidro where they had earlier met. When defendant appeared at the restaurant, he was arrested.

Following his arrest, defendant was incarcerated in the San Mateo County jail. Joseph Lauricella, defendant's cellmate, testified that defendant gave him a number of descriptions of how the murders occurred. Defendant also told him that he had been turned in by a Navy buddy (Luther) and offered Lauricella $1,000 to have him killed.

Even as defendant was fleeing to Mexico, the police investigation into the killings was focusing on defendant as the prime suspect. A search of defendant's house and two vehicles uncovered a cleaning bill for a leather jacket which stated "pre-spot for blood." The police also found a shirt with blood on it and a black motorcycle helmet. Glass fragments found inside a pair of defendant's socks and gloves matched glass fragments from the broken window of the Hunter residence.

Finally, a number of prosecution witnesses testified about defendant's troubled relationship with his father and stepmother. Defendant's father and natural mother, June Hunter, had separated and divorced in 1973. June Hunter died of cancer in 1979. Following the divorce, Jay Hunter married Ruth Chatburn Hunter. Defendant's sister, who was the administrator of her mother's estate, asked Ruth, a lawyer, to handle the probate. Ruth eventually removed herself from the case, however, because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • People v. Cuevas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 26 Diciembre 1995
    ......623-624, 205 Cal.Rptr. [906 P.2d 1296] 775, 685 P.2d 1126; see also People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 191, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664 [post-Gould; relying on Evidence Code section 411 to reject proposed cautionary instruction for informant testimony]; People v. Hunter (1989) 49 Cal.3d 957, 977, 264 Cal.Rptr. 367, 782 P.2d 608 [post-Gould; relying on Evidence Code section 411 to reject proposed cautionary instruction for immunized witness testimony].) .         We note, however, that in a decision predating the cases cited in the preceding paragraph, ......
  • People v. Cooke
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 29 Junio 1993
    ...... (Ibid.) .         The district attorney in this case did not request immunity for Steve Hyunh. California law clearly conditions a grant of transactional [16 Cal.App.4th 1367] immunity on a written request by the prosecutor. (§ 1324; see People v. Hunter (1989) 49 Cal.3d 957, 973, 264 Cal.Rptr. 367, 782 P.2d 608.) The section 1324 grant of immunity is strictly an executive function, "since the decision to seek immunity is an integral part of the charging process, and it is the prosecuting attorneys who are to decide what, if any, crime is to be ......
  • People v. Kelly
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 26 Noviembre 1990
    ...... Page 184 . though [800 P.2d 540] perhaps not deemed 'extreme,' nonetheless mitigates the seriousness of the offense." (at p. 776, 239 Cal.Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250; accord People v. Hunter (1989) 49 Cal.3d 957, 987-988, 264 Cal.Rptr. 367, 782 P.2d 608; People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 270, 253 Cal.Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 720, 248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253.) .         The instructions given to the jury went beyond this, ......
  • People v. Pinholster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 20 Febrero 1992
    ......244, 758 P.2d 572.) Nonetheless, we have rejected defendant's argument in the context of CALJIC No. 8.75, finding that the jury would not be misled by the instruction. (People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 580, 286 Cal.Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893; People v. Hunter (1989) 49 Cal.3d 957, 975-976, 264 Cal.Rptr. 367, 782 P.2d 608; People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 241-242, 253 Cal.Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906; People v. Hernandez, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 352-353, 253 Cal.Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289.) CALJIC No. 17.10, even in its 1982 form, 13 is even less ......
  • 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