People v. Hyde

Decision Date01 April 1985
Docket NumberCr. 15546
Citation212 Cal.Rptr. 440,166 Cal.App.3d 463
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel A. HYDE, Defendant and Appellant. D000032.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Foster and John W. Carney WIENER, Acting Presiding Justice.

Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

The present case presents the highly unusual circumstance of a first degree murder conviction where the body of the victim was never found. Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence that the victim died and that the defendant planned and perpetrated his killing is so overwhelming as to require us to affirm the conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Daniel Hyde moved in with his girlfriend, Jeanne Caulfield, in August of 1981. In March of the following year, Caulfield decided to terminate her relationship with Hyde because she wanted to date other men. She agreed to allow Hyde to continue living in her apartment until he received his income tax refund.

Hyde was not happy about Caulfield's decision and he made it apparent to her. On one occasion in April, she received a telephone call at work from a caller who identified himself as Steve Steinbeck, a man she had been dating the previous two weeks. She told the caller about Hyde's harassment of her, but then recognized that the caller was in fact Hyde. Becoming upset and frightened she called the police who met her at her apartment and ordered Hyde to leave.

Following his eviction, Hyde spoke to Caulfield on several occasions and learned from her that Steve Steinbeck was from Iowa and drove a truck. Hyde apparently located where Steinbeck lived and worked. He called Steinbeck's apartment, located at 1845 Hornblend St., and visited the Hub Liquor store where he worked, each time identifying himself as "Richard," a supposed friend of Steinbeck's from Iowa. Thereafter, Steinbeck's truck was vandalized when someone put sugar in the gas tank. Hyde admitted to Caulfield he knew about the incident but he disclaimed personal responsibility. On May 7, after Steinbeck was no longer seeing Caulfield, he returned to his apartment and discovered a man underneath his truck with a wrench and drain pan, loosening the bolts on the differential cover. When confronted, the man sprayed Steinbeck with a mace-type substance and fled. Hyde, a former police reserve officer with the San Diego Police Department, was trained in the use of mace. Steinbeck's description of his assailant generally matched Hyde, but when asked to view a photo line-up, Steinbeck identified the picture of another person as being closest to the man who attacked him.

Hyde continued to contact Caulfield by phone and in person throughout the latter part of April. In these conversations he demonstrated increasing emotional disturbance about the breakup of their relationship. Caulfield agreed to meet Hyde at a Sambo's restaurant late on the night of April 30. Hyde became upset during their conversation and asked if they could go out to his car because he did not want to cry in the restaurant. While talking in his car, Hyde told Caulfield he wanted to get back together and asked her questions about the men she was currently dating. In response Caulfield told Hyde she was going out with a man named "Felix." Her reference was to Felix Olivier, the eventual murder victim.

Hyde became angry when Caulfield refused to resume their relationship. Caulfield attempted to get out of the car but was grabbed by Hyde who began crying. When she again told Hyde she did not want to get back together, he hit her across the face and began choking her. Caulfield lost consciousness.

Caulfield regained consciousness soon thereafter and was aware that Hyde was checking her pulse and giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Hyde then started the car and drove toward the house where he was staying. On the way, he told Caulfield he was not taking her back where she could turn him in for attempted murder and that the incident was all her fault because she wanted to date other people. Hyde stopped at a restaurant parking lot near his house and had Caulfield get out of The next morning Hyde acted as though the couple had never broken up. He drove her back to the Sambo's restaurant where they had breakfast. Hyde began to cry, telling Caulfield he just wanted her to be happy and that he was not going to see her again. Caulfield then drove home.

the car to see if she could walk. He told her not to think about screaming for help. He then took her to his house where they spent the night.

Caulfield's respite proved short-lived. Approximately a week later, as she was driving to her sister's home in El Cajon where she was staying, Caulfield noticed Hyde's car following her. Becoming frightened, she drove immediately to the El Cajon Police Department. As she attempted to enter the parking lot, Hyde cut in front of her, causing their cars to collide. Hyde then got out of his car and began to pound his fists on the hood of Caulfield's car. Hyde moved and Caulfield was able to drive into the parking lot where a blast on her car's horn summoned six police officers who talked with her and Hyde separately.

At about this same time, Caulfield with Felix Olivier's help contacted an attorney to obtain a restraining order against Hyde. The request for an order to show cause and temporary restraining order was filed with the court on May 11 and served on Hyde on May 13.

Olivier stayed with Caulfield at her apartment on the night of May 7. Hyde called Caulfield early the following morning and threatened that if she got a restraining order, "it would cost [her] nothing but money and heartaches ..." and that a restraining order would not stop him. Olivier grabbed the phone and asked, "Who is this?" and gave the phone back to Caulfield. Hyde then repeated his warning and told Caulfield she would have more trouble than she dreamed was possible. Shortly thereafter, Caulfield had her phone number changed.

Olivier lived with his parents in a house on Waring Road in San Diego. Caulfield spent the week of May 9 with the Oliviers, returning to her apartment only to pick-up clothes. During that week, Olivier's father, also named Felix, received a phone call from a caller who identified himself as "Richard" and asked if Mr. Olivier's son still lived on Waring Road. The caller, who refused to leave a phone number, said he was a friend of Felix's from high school. During the conversation, Mr. Olivier informed the caller that Felix worked for Hewlett-Packard in Rancho Bernardo and that he drove a Fiat.

During the next week, Caulfield's car was sabotaged on two occasions. On May 14, the car would not start and it was discovered that more than a gallon of water had been poured into the fuel tank. On May 17, someone drained all the fluid from the car's differential, causing nearly $500 damage.

The following week, Caulfield and Olivier spoke by phone but agreed to meet only once, clandestinely, at a movie theater on May 23, Felix Olivier's birthday. The next day, May 24, the couple spoke by phone and planned to go to Universal City on the upcoming Memorial Day weekend. That afternoon, Olivier left his parents house between 1:00 and 2:00 and went to work at Hewlett-Packard in Rancho Bernardo.

Several of Felix Olivier's co-workers testified they left work at approximately the same time, 11:15 p.m., went to their cars, and exited the Hewlett-Packard parking lot in succession. From their testimony, it appears there was a marked San Diego police car parked across from the Hewlett-Packard gate as these individuals left. 2 It started up and soon passed the last two cars in the succession and began following Felix Because he was a former reserve police officer, Hyde had access to numerous items of police equipment. A search of his residence, garage and car after his arrest yielded the following items: uniform pants, shirt, tie, belt and shoes of the type commonly worn by San Diego police officers; a police-type gun belt and revolver; ammunition for the revolver; police handcuffs, flashlight and whistle; a set of universal keys for San Diego police vehicles, 3 a police reserve parking permit; a .22 calibre rifle and a 20-gauge shotgun; diving equipment; a business card with the name "Hewlett-Packard" written on the back; an envelope with the written words, "Steve, 3757 Miss. Blvd., 488-4373, 1845 Hornblend"; and a receipt from Hub Liquor and Delicatessen with the words "Richard stopped by to see Steve. 274-1306" written on the back.

Olivier as he turned onto the entrance to southbound Interstate 15. Shortly after getting on to the freeway, the police car's flashing light bar was activated and Olivier pulled over onto the freeway shoulder with the police car behind his vehicle. Another Hewlett-Packard employee proceeding southbound on Interstate 15 a few moments later testified he saw Olivier with his hands up facing a man generally matching Hyde's description in a police uniform. The "officer" then pushed Olivier into the back of the police car. This witness picked out Hyde's photo as possibly being the man he saw with Olivier that night. Olivier was never seen nor heard from again.

Not long after San Diego police received the report of Felix Olivier's disappearance from his parents and had talked to Jeanne Caulfield, their suspicion focused on Hyde. 4 They had Caulfield place a note on Hyde's windshield asking him to call her. The phone call, which was tape recorded, indicated that Hyde knew various details about Olivier and his relationship with Caulfield that he could have only learned from Olivier. Further, Hyde's comments during the conversation strongly suggest he knew something about the reason for Olivier's disappearance. 5 Later...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 cases
  • People v. Sassounian
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1986
    ...from view before he attacks the victim. (People v. Tuthill (1947) 31 Cal.2d 92, 100-101, 187 P.2d 16; People v. Hyde (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 463, 475-476, 212 Cal.Rptr. 440.) 51 The second answer to the defendant's contention lies in the fact that the jury failed to reach any verdict as to th......
  • People v. Stanley
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1995
    ...Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697; People v. Mattison (1971) 4 Cal.3d 177, 182-183, 93 Cal.Rptr. 185, 481 P.2d 193; People v. Hyde (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 463, 475, 212 Cal.Rptr. 440.) Thereafter, pursuant to section 189, the prosecution must prove the murder was perpetrated by one of the specified......
  • People v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1990
    ...§ 189.5, subd. (a) [formerly § 1105, subd. (a) ]; People v. Cornett (1948) 33 Cal.2d 33, 42-43, 198 P.2d 877; People v. Hyde (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 463, 474-475, 212 Cal.Rptr. 440; see People v. Loggins (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 597, 601-602, 100 Cal.Rptr. In this context, the prosecutor's remark......
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1990
    ..."facts" to which the admonition might apply. (E.g., People v. Cornett (1948) 33 Cal.2d 33, 42-43, 198 P.2d 877; People v. Hyde (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 463, 475, 212 Cal.Rptr. 440; see In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368.) 13 However, an accused is not e......
  • 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