People v. Jackson, Cr. 19407

• Decision Date: 05 August 1971
• Docket Number: Cr. 19407
• Citation: 19 Cal.App.3d 95,96 Cal.Rptr. 414
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wendell Gregory JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 414

96 Cal.Rptr. 414

19 Cal.App.3d 95

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wendell Gregory JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 19407.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 5, 1971.

Ronald S. Smith, Los Angeles, for appellant under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and later fixed the penalty at life imprisonment. The appeal is from the judgment.

The victim, Michael Maroney, was killed during an attempted burglary or robbery of his home where, according to information given the defendant, he kept a valuable coin collection. Since defendant admitted firing the fatal shots when his departure from the Maroney home was resisted by the victim, he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of guilt or the degree of the homicide. Instead, he contends that it was error to deny his motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made by him to police officers; he argues that had such motion been granted, his trial tactics would have been different--he would not have taken the stand and the People's case would thus have been insufficient to convict. Defendant's wife was also arrested after the homicide; citing People v. Trout, 54 Cal.2d 576, 583--584, 6 Cal.Rptr. 759, 354 P.2d 231, he now contends that his alleged confession was involuntarily obtained under an implied promise by the police to release her in exchange therefor.

Also involved in the fatal shooting were Richard Evans, Duane Johnston, Edward Brinkman and Thomas Keene--Evans and Johnston were named in the same information accusing defendant. Brinkman told Evans and Johnston that Mr. Maroney, a tavern owner, was purported to have a valuable coin collection; Evans and Johnston wanted the collection but told Brinkman that somebody else would have to do the job. Defendant was then introduced to Johnston who asked him if he was interested in obtaining the collection; defendant agreed to get it in return for an even share of whatever money the collection would bring. Brinkman accompanied defendant in the latter's car, a Thunderbird, to the Maroney residence; Johnston followed in his own car. When they reached the victim's house, Brinkman got into Johnston's car; they left the scene after they observed defendant cross the lawn and approach the door of the victim's residence. The shooting occurred shortly thereafter--between 7 and 8 p.m. according to Maroney's wife.

Shortly after 8 a.m. the next morning, Officer Bruno observed defendant and his wife seated in a 1962 Thunderbird at a Burbank drive-in coffee shop; previously he had received information that the vehicle had been used in a homicide in the North Hollywood-Van Nuys area. ¹ The couple having been ordered out of the car, the vehicle was searched and a .25 caliber automatic without a clip was found; the weapon was removed from the left front area of the vehicle, just below the driver's seat. A box of live rounds was also removed from the handbag of defendant's wife. Subsequently it was determined that the bullets taken from the victim's body were fired from the weapon found in defendant's car.

The following morning, defendant and his wife were transferred from the custody of Burbank Police by Officer Ross, assigned to Van Nuys Detectives; upon arrival at Van Nuys both were taken upstairs to the Detective Bureau and placed in separate rooms for interrogation purposes. On the motion to suppress Officer Ross testified that when he transferred the couple to Van Nuys he knew nothing about the homicide except that defendant had been arrested in connection therewith and the discovery of a weapon in his car; the same was true as to defendant's wife. He was asked by defendant, 'What are you holding my wife for?' and he replied, 'We don't know anything yet and we'll have to talk to you.' Defendant's interrogation by Ross, which was recorded and read to the court, discloses that after several preliminary questions were asked, Ross advised defendant of his constitutional rights; defendant answered in the affirmative when further asked whether he understood the nature of those rights. The following colloquy occurred: 'Q Do you wish to waive your rights to remain silent and talk to me about this? A There's not very much I'm going to give you because--Q Yeah. Before we can talk at all I have to have that waiver. A I'll give up the right to remain silent just to get my wife out of this, nothing more. Q Okay. Will you waive your right to have an attorney present while we talk about this? A Yeah.'

Later, in response to further questions, defendant stated 'I'll just give you what information I can to get my wife out of this. You know, as soon as possible, because she's got a heart condition and I don't want to put her through any more than I already have.' Still later he told Ross 'I'd like to blow my brains out right now, man, getting my old lady involved in it.' Such involvement, the record discloses, arose from his introduction of his wife to his confederates--apparently she was left at Brinkman's apartment on one occasion, and Brinkman so advised Officer Tubbs in the course of that interview. When Ross was questioned by the prosecutor on redirect, the following answers were given: 'Q Well, up to the time you spoke to Mr. Jackson, did you have any indication that women were not involved in this shooting? A No, I did not. Q Did you ever yourself affirm and bring up the subject of Mrs. Jackson to Mr. Jackson before you talked to him? A No, I didn't. Q Did you ever tell Mr. Jackson before you spoke to Mr. Jackson what was going to happen to Mrs. Jackson? A No, I did not. Q Did you ever affirmatively in any way tell or threaten Mr. Jackson with what might happen to his wife if he didn't talk to you? A No, I didn't. Q. In fact, the subject of his wife was brought up strictly by him, is that correct? A That's correct.' In line with the above quoted portions of his testimony, it also appears that Ross told defendant 'after I got (sic) through talking to her and comparing what you told me with what she says, if I have reason to feel she's not involved in it, I'm sure as hell not going to book her.'

The court's denial of the motion to suppress is sustainable on one or more of the following grounds. First, the factual situation above set forth is strongly similar to that found in People v. Abbott, 156 Cal.App.2d 601, 319 P.2d 664. There, as here, defendant's wife (albeit common law) was also taken into custody because she was living with defendant; there, as here, the officer told defendant that if the latter told the truth and there was no evidence to hold his wife, she would be released. The court observed that 'the officers made it clear to defendant that Miss Bell would not be...