People v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 03 March 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 1227
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dale Joaquin JENNINGS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 19

322 P.2d 19

158 Cal.App.2d 159

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dale Joaquin JENNINGS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1227.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

March 3, 1958.

Hearing Denied April 30, 1958.

Dale Joaquin Jennings, in pro. per., and Thomas P. Daly, Jr., Bakersfield, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Joe J. Yasaki, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MUSSELL, Justice.

Defendant was charged with the crime of Murder, in violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code, in that on or about March 2, 1957, he did wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Westley Earnest Haworth, a human being Defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and waived trial by jury. Three doctors were then appointed to conduct an examination upon him to determine his sanity and to report thereon to the court in writing. These reports were read and considered by the court and defendant was thereupon found to be sane.

It was then stipulated by the parties that the setting of the degree of the crime be submitted to the court on the medical reports and on June 19, 1957, the cause came on regularly for setting the degree for the crime charged. The court read and considered the reports of the three appointed medical examiners and the statement made by the defendant to the Kern county officers. A deputy sheriff testified on behalf of the People, and defendant's signed statement was offered and received in evidence. Counsel for the respective parties stipulated that if the doctors were called to testify, their testimony would be the same as their reports on file in said matter. The court then found the defendant to be sane and fixed the degree of the crime as murder in the first degree.

Defendant appeals from the judgment ordering that he be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life.

On March 3, 1957, officers found the body of Westley Earnest Haworth near the intersection of Superior Road and Rosedale Highway in the vicinity of Bakersfield in Kern county. An autopsy revealed that Haworth died as a result of two gunshot the victim was lying on his back, his head the victim was lying on hisk back , his head to the north, and there was a considerable amount of blood under the back of his head. There were tire tracks near the body which indicated that a vehicle had made a 'U' turn at a point approximately 10 feet south of the body and had stopped on the west side of the road. The tire tracks also indicated that approximately 40 feet south of the body the vehicle had left the vicinity at a fairly high rate of speed. Footprints were observed extending from the car to a point approximately 10 feet south of it.

At about 5:30 p. m. on March 3, 1957, a Kern county deputy sheriff had a conversation with the appellant in the Kern county hospital, in which appellant stated that he remembered that he was driving an automobile and a highway patrol car pursued him in the vicinity of Comp Roberts; that he had had an accident but that he could not remember what had happened 'previous to that'. On March 4th the officer had a second conversation with appellant in an ambulance in which appellant was being taken to the Kern General Hospital. Appellant then stated that he 'couldn't remember any of the events'. On March 6th appellant made another statement to the officers at the hospital Shorthand notes were made of this statement and a tape recording was made thereof by one of the officers. This statement is substantially as follows:

Appellant was 19 years old, lived in Bakersfield, and was stationed at Fort Ord, California. On March 2, 1957, he visited his grandmother, who lived near Shafter. While there he saw her husband's revolved, a .38 calibre, which was loaded with five rounds of ammunition, and when appellant left his grandmother's place, he took this gun, which she had placed under the mattress in the bedroom, and put it in his overcoat pocket. It was late in the morning of March 2nd when he left and he then hitchhiked to Calders Corner to visit some friends. He obtained a ride back to Shafter and then hitchhiked to Bakersfield, where he got off at the city limits, walked down town and started to hitchhike back towards Shafter. He caught a ride to Rosedale and from there to the intersection of Allen Road or Santa Fe Road, near Shafter. At about 4:30 in the afternoon, while he was trying to get a ride, a 1957 Chevrolet sedan was brought to a stop near him and the driver, who was alone, offered to take appellant to Bakersfield. He got into the car and when they reached Oak and 19th Streets in Bakersfield, appellant told the driver to stop the car. Appellant then got out and started to get his handbag, when the driver asked him to get back into the car and said that he would take appellant down where he was going. They then drove towards Taft Highway. The driver began talking about his Army experiences and about a young recruit who was forced to engage in sexual acts with members of his platoon. However, the driver made no advances or suggestions to the appellant. After talking about women, drinking, and again about the young recruit, the driver drove a short distance on a dirt road, made a 'U' turn, so that the car faced south, and stopped. The driver then reached over and put his hand on the appellant's shoulder, but said nothing. Appellant told him he had better take appellant back to Bakersfield and when the driver said he was not going to do it, appellant reached into his overcoat and drew the revolver. The driver opened the car door on his side, jumped out and walked or ran backwards toward the rear of the car. Appellant got out on the driver's side and when the driver was facing him, a little distance behind the car, appellant stepped toward him, raised the gun, and pulled the trigger. Nothing was said by either appellant or the driver when they got out of the car and before the first shot was fired. After the first shot, the driver fell backwards and appellant then ran to him and, while the driver was lying in his back, appellant pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger again. Appellant then went back to the car, threw the gun on the front seat, got in and drove forward a few feet, when the car stalled. He again started the motor, spun the tires, and drove out onto the highway. When he was near Paso Robles, he opened the gun and threw the cartridges out the car window. He turned north toward Salinas and then saw a car with red lights behind him. He speeded up, and going into a curve, lost control of the car, crashed through a railing and was 'thrown towards the ceiling'. The next thing he remembered was that he was lying on the ground, with a coat or blanket over him. Appellant further stated that he thought he fired the first shot at the victim because he was 'mad and disgusted' as a result of his conversation with him and that he did not know why he had fired the second shot.

All three of the appointed medical examiners reached the conclusion that appellant was legally sane. Dr. Stockton stated that in his opinion the appellant was a moderately intelligent 'psychopathic delinquent', as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code, § 7050, and that he should be institutionalized indefinitely. Dr. Antonio Perelli-Minetti stated that appellant is considered sane with respect to the act charged and, at the time of his examination, sane for the purposes of standing trial; that appellant did not suffer from any mental defect, disease, or derangement rendering him incapable of appreciating the character and quality of the act charged or incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong as to the act. Dr. Alexander Angur stated that it was his opinion that appellant was not insane at the time he committed the offense charged and was not insane on April 27, 1957, when the doctor examined him.

The principal question involved in this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of first degree murder.

When appellant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity without also pleading not guilty, he admitted the offense charged (Penal Code, Sec. 1016), and when he was found to be sane at the time the offense was committed, the court was required to sentence him as required by law (Penal Code, Sec. 1026). Since the crime of murder is divided into two degrees (Penal Code, Sec. 189), the court was required to determine the degree of the crime before passing sentence (Penal Code, Sec. 1192). Section 189 of the Penal Code Provides in part that all murder which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate robbery is murder of the first degree, and robbery is defined in section 211 of the Penal Code as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

The corpus delicti of the crime of murder was established herein by evidence other than the statement of the appellant and by his failure to enter a plea of not guilty. In People v. Miller, 37 Cal.2d 801, 806, 236 P.2d 137, 139, the court said:

'The corpus delicti of the crime of murder having been established by independent evidence, both reason and authority indicate that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime can be shown by the extrajudicial statements of the accused, and that such evidence of the...