People v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 05 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2504 |
| Citation | 243 Cal.App.2d 324,52 Cal.Rptr. 329 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James M. JENNINGS and Clarence Homer Hurst, Defendants and Resopndents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The People appeal from an order setting aside and dismissing Count I of an information charging the defendants with the crime of murder (Pen.Code. § 187). The defendants were also charged with the crimes of arson (Pen.Code, § 447a) and conspiracy to commit arson (Pen.Code, § 182), but the arson and conspiracy counts are not involved in this appeal.
A review of the evidence, as contained in the transcript of the preliminary examination indicates that the defendants James M. Jennings and Clarence Homer Hurst and one Arthur Clifford Bockstahler formed a partnership in April 1964 for the purpose of organizing and operating a rest home and rehabilitation center for postcardiac patients. The copartners leased a motel operation known as Laguna Village Motel, Laguna Beach, California, for the purpose of converting it into a combination rest home-clinic for heart convalescents. Because some of the units were still leased to private tenants at the time the copartnership took over the operation of the motel, the conversion of the business into a medical center could not be immediately effected, although items of medical and clinical equipment were installed by the copartners in some of the apartments as vacancies occurred. Apartment No. 43, in September 1964, was equipped in the fashion of a doctor's office and contained two patients' examination tables, a desk, filing cabinets, an electro-cardiogram machine, a day bed, a medical supply cabinet, and other miscellaneous medical fixtures. Apartment No. 42 was adjacent to Apartment No 45 and was occupied by a family whose lease had apparently not expired.
The members of the partnership took out insurance in the sum of $50,000 on the furniture, furnishings and equipment which they had purchased and installed in the various units of Laguna Village, and also secured fire coverage of $150,000--$200,000 on the permanent buildings and improvements.
On or about September 7, 1964, the three partners conspired to set fire to the premises for the purpose of collecting the insurance. An accomplice, Lester Gustav Jaeger, was employed to burn the premises, and the defendant Jennings paid Jaeger a certain sum of money on September 9, 1964, to commit arson. It was understood that the defendants Hurst and Jennings would be absent from Laguna Village during the early morning hours of September 10, 1964, when Jaeger ignited the premises. Bockstahler was to remain in his apartment No. 47 while Jaeger was making the preparations to ignite the buildings.
Jaeger slept in Bockstahler's apartment until 3:00--3:30 a.m., whereupon he arose and left the apartment for an hour. During this period of time he poured gasoline on the floor and walls of Apartment No. 43 and also splattered some on the ceiling of said unit. Traces of gasoline were later discovered in eight other vacant apartments located in the Village area. He returned to Bockstahler's apartment and advised that he had spilled some 'juice' (gasoline) on his shirt, and was admonished to be careful. After leaving Bockstahler, Jaeger returned to Apartment No. 43 and negligently ignited the gasoline, resulting in a flash fire. He was horribly burned in the process, struggled outside, rolled on the ground to extinguish the flames on his clothing, and found his way back to Bockstahler' apartment. Bockstahler noted the serious burns, furnished Jaeger with a double shot of whiskey at the latter's request, observed the secretion of fluid from the burned areas of Jaeger's torso, and prepared a cold bath in which Jaeger emersed after being undressed by Bockstahler.
In the interim, the fire department had arrived and extinguished the blaze in Apartment No. 43, and the police began an investigation. Jaeger was experiencing excruciating pain and Bockstahler transported him to the Veterans Administration Hospital at Long Beach for care and treatment. Subsequently Jaeger died, after making a dying declaration to police authorities in which he confessed to the crime and admitted that he had been employed by the three partners to commit arson for insurance purposes. These criminal proceedings were then initiated against two of the three Bockstahler testified on behalf of the prosecution.
The issue to be determined is whether conspirators engaged in a plot to commit arson may be charged with murder of an accomplice who accidentally burns himself to death.
'Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought.' (Pen.Code, § 187.)
'All murder * * * which is committed in the perpetration * * * (of) arson, rape, robbery, burglary, mayhem * * * is murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murders are of the second degree.' (Pen.Code, § 189.)
An essential element of murder, except when the common-law-felony-murder doctrine is applicable, is an intent to kill or an intent with conscious disregard of life to commit acts likely to kill. (People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777, 44 Cal.Rptr. 442, 402 P.2d 130.) The felony-murder doctrine imputes malice aforethought to the felon who kills another in the commission of one of the enumerated felonies defined in Penal Code, section 189. (People v. Washington, supra.) Malice aforethought may not be implied under Penal Code, section 189 to make a killing murder unless the defendant or his accomplice commits the killing in the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony. (People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal.2d 690, 705, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365.) Thus, unintentional killings are first degree murders when committed by felons while perpetrating any of the crimes denounced in the said section. (People v. Coefield, 37 Cal.2d 865, 236 P.2d 570.) If the unlawful killing occurs in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vang
...not apply where accomplice killed by victim because killing was not committed in perpetration of robbery] and People v. Jennings (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 324, 329, 52 Cal.Rptr. 329 [rule does not apply where accomplice accidentally killed self while engaged in arson] with People v. Stamp (1969......
-
People v. Billa
...It followed Ferlin in concluding the felony-murder rule did not apply. (Id. at pp. 750-752, 47 Cal.Rptr. 291.) In People v. Jennings (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 324, 52 Cal.Rptr. 329, three persons, including the defendants, hired another to burn a building for insurance purposes. That person cau......
-
Taylor v. Superior Court
...203 Cal. 587, 597, 265 P. 230; Woodruff v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.2d 749, 750--751, 47 Cal.Rptr. 291, and People v. Jennings, 243 Cal.App.2d 324, 328--329, 52 Cal.Rptr. 329, are not apposite for they simply held that an accomplice cannot be charged with murder when his confederate acci......
- Mannion v. Campbell Soup Co.