People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 18 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23750,No. S004615,S004615,23750 |
| Citation | 783 P.2d 211,264 Cal.Rptr. 852,49 Cal.3d 1170 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 783 P.2d 211 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Anthony JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White and Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Hahn, John R. Gorey and David F. Glassman, Deputy Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
Michael Anthony Jackson appeals from a judgment of death imposed for the first degree murder of Kenneth Wrede on August 31, 1983. (Pen.Code, § 187.) 1 The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that Wrede was a peace officer who was intentionally killed while engaged in the performance of his duties and that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Wrede was a peace officer in the performance of his duties. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7).) The jury also found that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of sections 12022.5 and 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1). We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
There is little dispute as to what happened in the confrontation that resulted in defendant's shooting of Officer Wrede. Prosecution and defense witnesses testified to a substantially similar sequence of events. Responding to two citizen calls that a man was acting strangely in a residential neighborhood, Wrede approached defendant who was barefoot and disheveled and stumbling aimlessly. The officer asked defendant to identify himself and state where he was going; defendant pointed in a northerly direction. Officer Wrede asked defendant to sit on the curb. Defendant ignored Wrede and walked away. When Wrede followed, defendant turned on the officer and a fight ensued. Defendant seemed to overpower the officer, tearing his uniform, pulling off his badge and throwing him around. The officer attempted to fend off defendant's blows, blocking them with his baton, and attempted to use mace, which barely deterred defendant. On his part, defendant tried to pull a sapling from the ground to hurl at Wrede and then did pull up the supporting stakes (six and nine feet long), swung them, and threw them at the officer. Defendant then grabbed the officer by the waist and dragged him to the ground, causing him to lose the baton. The officer struggled free, ran to the driver's side of the police car, and reached for the radio. At this point the officer had not drawn his service revolver. At the same time defendant ran to the passenger side of the car, opened the door, and reached for the shotgun located in a rack at the front of the patrol car. Defendant pulled the gun and the rack from the car and tried, unsuccessfully, to cock it by pulling the chamber back. 2 Wrede Responding police units, including a K-9 unit, arrived seconds thereafter. Defendant walked away from Wrede's patrol car towards two of the responding officers, attempting to cock the shotgun while making statements that "I'll shoot you ... I'm gonna shoot you ... I'm gonna kill all the fucking pigs." Deputy Sheriff Vine testified that he watched defendant coming toward him, holding the gun and attempting to activate the slide of the shotgun to chamber a round. Vine drew his gun and pointed it at defendant but he did not fire because an officer, with the police dog, was directly behind defendant. Instead, Vine yelled, "Release your dog, do something" and "Shoot him, shoot him."
drew his revolver. The two pointed the guns at each other over the top of the car as defendant stood on the curb, leaning on the car, and the officer crouched on the other side of the car. Defendant pulled the trigger, but the gun failed to fire because the shotgun was not cocked. Defendant removed the shotgun from the top of the patrol car, successfully cocked it and again [783 P.2d 215] pointed the gun at the officer who was now crouched near the driver's door by the lightbar. However, when the [49 Cal.3d 1182] officer told him to put the gun down, defendant appeared to comply. Defendant laid the shotgun down on the roof by the lightbar and put his head and left hand on the roof; he kept his right hand on the shotgun. As Officer Wrede moved to the rear of car to come around, defendant aimed at and shot the officer.
The dog was unleashed to attack defendant. Defendant hit the attacking dog with the shotgun. Though stunned, the dog eventually succeeded in biting defendant, causing him to drop the shotgun. Police converged and, after a fierce struggle, three officers finally subdued defendant. During the struggle, defendant not only attempted to retrieve the shotgun but also attempted to take a holstered gun from one of the officers.
Testifying in his own behalf, defendant stated that on the morning of August 31st he did some work at the home of a friend, James Butler. As partial payment of money owed, Butler offered him a half stick of a "super cool," a cigarette dipped in phencyclidine (PCP). Later in the morning, defendant shared two or three "super cools" with Butler and two women friends. As he did so, it "just all of a sudden creeped up on me and just explode." According to defendant, the last thing he remembered was passing around the third "super cool" with the others. He did not remember leaving Butler's house, kicking off his beachwalkers, or running down the street. The next thing he remembered he was somewhere "with a bunch of lights in his face and hearing someone saying he was a hero." Defendant did not remember anything after that until he was pinched by someone when he came to in a hospital. At that time, he jumped up. He did not recall whether he was strapped down.
Thereafter, defendant "just knocked out" and woke up in a bed in a one-person cell. Two officers came to talk to him but he did not recall whether they advised him of his constitutional rights. One of the officers said, "Do you know what you are in for?" When defendant stated "no," one officer told him he had shot a police officer with a gun. The other officer said, "With his shotgun." Defendant told the officers, The officers left, indicating they would return.
Before the officers returned, however, defendant was visited by an attorney who advised defendant not to talk to anyone. Defendant gave the attorney's card to the doctor or nurse and did not see the officers again.
Defendant claimed he had no memory of the events involving the shooting of Officer Wrede. He acknowledged that he was a chronic user of PCP, having used it since 1977. In the summer of 1983 he used PCP Defendant called several witnesses whose account of the shooting incident was substantially similar to that of the prosecution witnesses. Defense counsel directed his questioning of them principally to defendant's bizarre behavior before Officer Wrede arrived, to defendant's angry and vulgar response to the officer, and to the almost Herculean proportions of defendant's physical response.
three or four times a week; he had been arrested and convicted of using or being under the influence of PCP five or six times; he also admitted a 1975 conviction for second degree burglary.
Other defense witnesses testified to defendant's condition immediately after the shooting, his low blood pressure (90 over 40) and the difficulty of establishing an intravenous connection because of his uncooperative behavior and "thrashing around." Defendant was "sweaty" and appeared to be under the influence of an unknown substance.
The emergency room physician, Dr. Rosebrough, testified that defendant was "in a lesser state of consciousness." His rapid heart beat and low blood pressure were consistent with dehydration, and he could have been in a state of shock. Defendant's urine screen was positive for amphetamines and cocaine, and his blood screen was positive for PCP. Defendant became verbally responsive about an hour and a half after receiving intravenous fluids.
Registered nurse Gerald Osacho testified that defendant's arms and legs were restrained because he was a suspected user of PCP, that he appeared to be in a "shock like" state but not in "true shock." At about 3 p.m. he made his first lucid response, stating his name and indicating that he took PCP. A police officer then asked defendant for some identifying information. As he left the hospital at 4 p.m., possibly in response to a police officer's question--"[d]o you know why you are here?"--defendant asked,
Dr. Orm Aniline, a psychiatrist, testified that the effects of PCP are unpredictable and vary with the individual. A chronic user, because of PCP stored in his system, may be "set off" with a slight amount of PCP as compared to a first-time user. Although a first-time user would be unconscious with about 100 nanograms per milliliter of PCP in the blood, there is no way to determine what amount of nanograms per milliliter of PCP in the blood would render a chronic user unconscious. There is no agreed upon intoxication level of PCP which indicates when a person is under the influence of PCP or which will predictably result in distorted behavior. Some PCP intoxicated persons behave normally, while some users may "overreact" and engage in "bizarre behavior" in what are perceived as stressful events or acts of provocation, such as an order from a police officer. A person intoxicated with PCP may believe he has an unusual amount of strength and might believe he could pull a tree out of the ground. One of the effects of PCP is to produce anesthesia and reduce feelings of pain.
Dr. Aniline opined that defendant was under the influence of PCP at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pettigrew
..." ‘[T]he law does not require that a first degree murderer have a "rational" motive for killing.’ " ( People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1200, 264 Cal.Rptr. 852, 783 P.2d 211.) "Anger at the way the victim talked to [the defendant] [citation] or any motive, ‘shallow and distorted but,......
-
People v. Caro
...1182 ), but is a proper factor for the jury to consider when assessing the witness's credibility ( People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1205-1206, 264 Cal.Rptr. 852, 783 P.2d 211 ; see also Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (a) ). Third, Caro contends that the prosecutor improperly expressed a p......
-
Dixon v. Rackley
...the motion, because the record does not affirmatively show counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the omission. (People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1202; seePeople v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 657.)Were we to consider the prosecutor's excusal of M.R., we would still find no in......
-
People v. Hendrix
...under Watson . (See People v. Pearson (2012) 53 Cal.4th 306, 325, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 266 P.3d 966 ; People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1195, 264 Cal.Rptr. 852, 783 P.2d 211.)Hendrix contends that, in order to prove he harbored the requisite criminal intent to steal, the prosecution ......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...(1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 988, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390; see, e.g., People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1189 (waiver was voluntary despite D's PCP use and physical injuries; D was voluntarily impaired and there was no indication D was incapacita......
-
Table of Cases null
...Ch. 7, §3.3.1(1)(b) People v. Jackson, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1493, 267 Cal. Rptr. 841 (2d Dist. 1990)—Ch. 2, §9.2.2 People v. Jackson, 49 Cal. 3d 1170, 264 Cal. Rptr. 852, 783 P.2d 211 (1989)—Ch. 4-B, §3.1; Ch. 5-C, §2.2.2(1)(b)[2] People v. Jackson, 177 Cal. App. 3d 708, 222 Cal. Rptr. 470 (1st......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Specific types of impeachment evidence
...her credibility, and attorneys can comment on those matters in argument. See Evid. C. §780(a); see, e.g., People v. Jackson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1170, 1205-06 (no error when prosecutor commented on D's smirking manner while on witness stand). However, the jury can consider a witness's demeanor ......