People v. Jennings

Decision Date19 September 1988
Docket NumberNo. S004612,No. 23625,S004612,23625
Citation760 P.2d 475,251 Cal.Rptr. 278,46 Cal.3d 963
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 760 P.2d 475, 57 USLW 2278 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Wayne JENNINGS, Defendant and Appellant. Crim.
[760 P.2d 478] Frank O. Bell, Jr., State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Musawwir Spiegel, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert F. Wilkinson and Gerald A. Engler, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

EAGLESON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Contra Costa County Superior Court of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 189) 1 (count I); forcible rape ( § 261, subd. (2)) (count II); first degree burglary ( §§ 459-460) (count III); and robbery ( § 211) (count IV). He was found to have personally used a knife during the commission of each of these crimes ( § 12022, subd. (b)), all of which occurred on August 8, 1982, and involved the same victim, Violet Ann Newman. The jury found true special circumstance allegations that defendant intentionally committed the murder during the commission or attempted commission of the rape, residential burglary, and robbery. ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i), (iii) and (vii).) The jury fixed the penalty for the murder as death. After denying modification of the verdict ( § 190.4), the court imposed that penalty. This appeal is automatic. ( § 1239, subd. (b).)

Defendant seeks reversal of the verdicts of guilt on grounds that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his pretrial statements which he claims were obtained by interrogating officers in violation of his right against self-incrimination after he had invoked his right to remain silent. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; People v. Fioritto (1968) 68 Cal.2d 714, 68 Cal.Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625.) Defendant also challenges the penalty proceedings on a variety of grounds most of which are related to the propriety of the court's instructions to the jury.

After an independent review of the videotaped interrogation of defendant we conclude that the trial judge, who also reviewed the tape, could reasonably believe that defendant had not invoked his right to silence, and we find nothing in that tape to persuade us otherwise. Admission of defendant's statement was not error, therefore. Finding no error prejudicial to defendant during the penalty phase of the trial, we shall affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I.

Violet Newman, the 63-year-old victim, died of multiple traumatic injuries she suffered in her Concord home at approximately midnight on Saturday, August 7, 1982. An autopsy revealed 14 stab wounds in her chest and abdomen, and a deep laceration across her neck that severed the left carotid artery and the jugular vein. A possible ligature mark encircled her neck. Marks on the ankles were consistent with those that a rope tied around the ankles would make. There were bruises and abrasions on the victim's face and neck. She had been raped in a manner that caused abrasions in the vaginal wall. Bruises on the inside of her right thigh could have been made by a knee. Semen found just above the pubic hairline was aspermatic, and contained A and H blood-type antigens.

Newman's body was found in her bedroom, on the bed, on Monday evening, August 9, by her brother-in-law who had been contacted by her employer when she failed to arrive at work on Sunday. She was unclothed except for a night hat and gloves. Her legs were spread wide apart. Her purse lay open at the foot of the bed. Her wallet and checkbook were missing, as was a telephone answering machine that she had kept in the living room.

Defendant was connected to the homicide only by circumstantial evidence. That evidence, however, was strong. His parents, with whom he had lived until six weeks Microscopic examination of a piece of broken plastic found in defendant's truck established that it had come from an answering machine of the same make as that missing from the victim's house. Blood on the piece of plastic contained the AK type 2-1 enzyme as did the victim's blood. Defendant's blood type, A, contained AK type 1 enzyme. Moreover, his blood possessed A and H antigens like those in the aspermatic semen found on the body. Defendant was determined to be a secreter whose blood-type substances were present in his semen. He had undergone a successful vasectomy in 1976.

before the killing, were immediate neighbors of the victim. He had grown up with the victim's children. Defendant continued to visit frequently with his parents. A layered piece of strapping tape found in the victim's bed bore defendant's thumb print and partial left palm print. Tape of the same size and type was found in the camper shell of defendant's pickup truck which was seized and impounded on August 12. Rope found in the truck was microscopically examined and determined to be made identically to a piece six inches long that had been found on the floor next to the victim's bed. This rope was the width of the ligature mark.

Boot prints on the victim's sheet were sufficiently similar to those made by the boots worn by defendant at the time of his August 12 arrest to have been made by those boots. A telephone call had been attempted from the victim's telephone at 2:19 a.m. on August 8 to the home of Ms. B., a friend of defendant with whom he had lived in 1981. She did not know the victim. Defendant had also attempted to reach her earlier during the night of August 7, when he telephoned from a bachelor party he was attending in Pittsburg. Although defendant had left the party to purchase beer and had returned without any money, he had $10 to $15 in currency and some change the next morning at 8 a.m. when he again returned to the house where the party had been held.

At 9 a.m. on August 8, defendant visited other friends who noticed that his hair was wet. He told them he had taken a whirlpool bath. The victim had a whirlpool machine. Although she habitually hung her towels on the bathroom towel racks, after the murder one was found thrown over the shower door. Defendant was in possession of a folding pocket knife at the August 7 party, but the next afternoon stated that he had lost the knife. The blade on the knife was about three and one-half to four inches in length, consistent with the stab wounds suffered by the victim.

Defendant told several persons that he had not left the August 7 bachelor party until Sunday morning. He had told an investigating officer that he had been at the party from 1:45 p.m. on Saturday until 4:30 a.m. on Sunday. He later stated that he had left for two 15-minute periods before 11 p.m. Saturday to purchase drugs. Still later he told another officer that he had left the party at 11 p.m. to drive his brother home, after which he had returned to the party where he remained until 1 or 1:30 a.m. Sunday when he went to the home of another friend where he remained until 6:30 a.m. Sunday, at which time he returned to the house where the party had been given. The house in which the party had been held was 7 to 15 miles from the home of the victim dependent upon the route taken. Travel time between locations was 13 to 20 minutes.

No witness testified that petitioner had remained at the party all night. The testimony of those witnesses who had been at the party conflicted as to the time he had been absent, but all agreed that he had left the party several times.

After the victim's body was discovered, defendant made statements to acquaintances that referred to details that were not publicly known. On the night of August 10 he said that his neighbor had been tied up, stabbed numerous times, and it appeared an attempt had been made to cut her head off. He claimed he had been shown pictures of the body by the police, but the first photos had not been developed at the time he had been present during a police interview. On the same day, during an interview of defendant's parents by a The defense was alibi, coupled with an effort to suggest that another person who had been seen in or near a station wagon in the neighborhood on several occasions when a series of burglaries occurred, and who was in front of the victim's house on Monday, August 9, had committed the offenses.

police officer, defendant said that he could not see how anyone would rape such a nice old lady. He volunteered statements about the rape when interviewed at the police station on August 12. No information about the rape, the slashed throat, or that the victim had been tied had been released to the public.

II. GUILT PHASE

Defendant's first claim, made in a brief filed before the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137, is that trial by a "death-qualified" jury (Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776) denied him both the right to be tried by a jury representing a fair cross-section of the community and the right to trial by an impartial jury. Both arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court in Lockhart as they had been earlier by this court in People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 197 Cal.Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680, and Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301. (See also People v. Chavez (1985) 39Cal.3d 823, 827, 218 Cal.Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372; People v. Anderson (1985) 38 Cal.3d 58, 60, 210 Cal.Rptr. 777, 694 P.2d 1149; People v. Zimmerman (1984) 36 Cal.3d 154, 161, 202 Cal.Rptr. 826, 680 P.2d 776.) These arguments need not be addressed further. (People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 732, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741; People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 78-79, 241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127.)

De...

To continue reading

Request your trial
240 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 Noviembre 2019
    ...of section 190.3 that the jury be made aware of all of the factors bearing on the penalty decision." ( People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 987, 251 Cal.Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475.) If the prosecution discovers new evidence that it wishes to present after the initial notice, it must prompt......
  • People v. Zavala
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Octubre 2013
    ...party seekingexclusion must object at such time as the evidence is actually offered to preserve the issue for appeal' (People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 975, fn. 3), although a sufficiently definite and express ruling on a motion in limine may also serve to preserve a claim (People v......
  • Jurado v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 17 Septiembre 2018
    ...for the purposes of due process and speedy trial analysis' (People v. Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 822-823, citing People v. Jennings, 46 Cal.3d 963, 982 (1988), People v. Balderas, 41 Cal.3d 144, 205, fn. 32 (1985)) have not involved situations where, as here, the prosecution's failur......
  • People v. Vang
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Agosto 2022
    ...personally kill," equating the term "actual killer" with someone who "personally killed" the victim. ( People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 979, 251 Cal.Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475 ; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1204, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487 ; People v. Jones (2003) 30 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Attacking the Opposing Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2018 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2018
    ...state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on its admissibility. See People v. Jennings, 46 Cal. 3d 963, 975, fn 3 (1988). Be prepared to demonstrate the prejudice that would result by merely asking the opposing expert a prejudicial question.......
  • Attacking the Opposing Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses
    • 4 Mayo 2022
    ...state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on its admissibility. See People v. Jennings, 46 Cal. 3d 963, 975, fn 3 (1988). Be prepared to demonstrate the prejudice that would result by merely asking the opposing expert a prejudicial question.......
  • Attacking the Opposing Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2021 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2021
    ...state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on its admissibility. See People v. Jennings, 46 Cal. 3d 963, 975, fn 3 (1988). Be prepared to demonstrate the prejudice that would result by merely asking the opposing expert a prejudicial question.......
  • Attacking the Opposing Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on its admissibility. See People v. Jennings, 46 Cal. 3d 963, 975, fn 3 (1988). Be prepared to demonstrate the prejudice that would result by merely asking the opposing expert a prejudicial question.......
  • 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