People v. Jensen

• Decision Date: 26 October 1954
• Docket Number: Cr. 5600
• Citation: People v. Jensen, 43 Cal.2d 572, 275 P.2d 25 (Cal. 1954)
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard John JENSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 25

275 P.2d 25

43 Cal.2d 572

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Richard John JENSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5600.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Oct. 26, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1954.

F. Walton Brown, Harold J. Ackerman, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Dep. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

EDMONDS, Presiding Justice.

A jury found Richard John Jensen guilty on each count of an information charging him with robbery, assault with intent to commit murder, and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery.The court ordered that the sentences for the first two offenses run concurrently and for the last offense, following the recommendation of the jury, fixed the penalty at death.The statutory appeal, Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b) is from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

While driving along a main highway Jensen stopped and offered a ride to Marion L. Piper, a sergeant in the U. S. Marine Corps, who was 'hitchhiking.'Piper accepted, and they drove several miles to the intersection of the highway with a side road.Jensen announced that he wanted to 'stop off and see a buddy for a few minutes' and turned off the highway.After proceeding for three or four miles he stopped the car.In the rear seat, hidden under a blanket, was a device which Jensen had constructed from the barrel and mechanism of a .22 caliber rifle.The barrel was mounted so that the muzzle pointed through a hole which had been drilled in the metal back of the front seat, directly behind the spot where a passenger would be seated.As Jensen turned to open the door he tripped a wire which caused the gun to fire.

The bullet lodged in the lower left side of Piper's back.Seizing a hammer from the rear seat, Jensen walked around the car to Piper, who had alighted and was standing beside the car, and struck him on the head with it several times.Dazed, Piper fell forward against the seat.His wallet was removed, and when he stirred and spoke in protest, he received another blow on the head.Jensen pushed him into the car and began to drive away, but, when the injured man slumped across the gear shift lever, he stopped, dragged him into the rear seat, and covered him with a blanket.

A few minutes later, the car stopped and the rear door on the passenger's side was opened.Piper feigned unconsciousness as Jensen, carrying a small camping light, slashed his shoe laces with a knife.When Jensen attempted to remove the second shoe Piper kicked at him, knocking him off balance and causing him to drop the light.Jensen ran around the car and fired a shot from a shotgun which struck the marine in the left side of the chest.Piper then dropped to the ground.

Jensen returned to the sergeant, who lay semi-conscious on his back, and turned him over on his face.He removed Piper's clothing from the waist down and twice attempted to commit an act of sodomy.Afterwards, he completely disrobed the marine, and tore off his 'dog tags' and wristwatch, in the process inflicting severe gashes in the flesh of his hand.Piper was dragged to the edge of the road where Jensen, after feeling his pulse, struck him on the head again with the hammer and then rolled him four or five feet down an embankment.He covered Piper with dirt and drove away.

Piper lay quietly until Jensen had gone and then crawled up the embankment to the road.He walked about a mile before he found help.In a critical condition, he was removed to a hospital where he underwent extensive surgery.Piper testified at the trial although still hospitalized from injuries which were described as permanent.

Jensen was apprehended close to the point where the side road rejoins the main highway within a short time after he left Piper.On his person police officers found Piper's wallet, wristwatch, 'dog tags' and several one-dollar bills which Jensen admitted belonged to Piper.On his clothing were spots which chemical analysis showed to be blood of the same type as that of the marine.Blood stains also appeared on the upholstery of Jensen's automobile and on various implements in it.In the car were found several knives, a shotgun, parts of a .22 caliber rifle and another gun.The shotgun and rifle had been fired a short time before their discovery.Ballistics tests established that the bullet lodged in Piper's back came from the rifle, and hammer markings on an empty shell casing found near the scene of the attack corresponded with those made by the shotgun.

When arrested, Jensen gave conflicting accounts of what had happened.At first he denied attacking Piper, but later made several detailed confessions.He stated that he had planned to rob a hitchhiker and decided upon a serviceman as presenting the best opportunity for obtaining money.He devised the apparatus in the rear seat on the morning of the attack, he said, and after testing it to his satisfaction he mounted it in the car as 'a sort of secondary defense, in case the person (he) was holding up attempted to fight back.'His meeting with Piper was described, and he admitted attacking him although he denied molesting him sexually.According to Jensen, he removed the sergeant's clothing to delay as long as possible identification of the body.To police officers he related the circumstances of the attacks and his later attempts to obliterate signs of them.He pointed out the locations where the attacks occurred and the places he discarded items of incriminating evidence and buried Piper's clothing.In explanation of his actions, he said 'my original intent was simply robbery.I kind of lost my head, went further than I originally planned on.'

Before the trial, counsel for Jensen moved under section 995 of the Penal Code to set the information aside.The motion was denied and pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity were entered.By order of the court, Jensen was examined by three psychiatrists, each of whom concluded that Jensen was sane at that time and at the time the offenses were committed.At the close of the People's case, Jensen, independently of his counsel, presented to the trial judge a written document containing 'objections' and motions for a mistrial and for a change of venue.The motions were denied.At Jensen's request, his counsel then withdrew his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.Jensen declined to take the stand, and the defense rested without presenting any evidence.

Two contentions are made by Jensen.He asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to order a trial upon the question of his present sanity.Another point is that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in permitting the district attorney to state to the jury the meaning of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Section 1368 of the Penal Code provides that '(i)f at any time during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment a doubt arises as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order the question as to his sanity to be determined by a trial by the court without a jury, or with a jury, if a trial by jury is demanded * * *.'A defendant is sane within the meaning of this section if he is able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him and to conduct his own defense in a rational manner.People v. Gomez, 41 Cal.2d 150, 158, 258 P.2d 825;People v. Aparicio, 38 Cal.2d 565, 567, 241 P.2d 221.'The 'doubt' mentioned is one that must arise in the mind of the trial judge, rather than in the mind of counsel for the defendant or in that of any third person * * * and the determination of a motion for a hearing upon the issue of a defendant's sanity at the time of trial is one which rests within the sound discretion of the court.'People v. Lindley, 26 Cal.2d 780, 789, 161 P.2d 227, 232.And 'it is only where, as a matter of law, a 'doubt' may be said to appear, or where there has been an abuse of the discretion that is vested in the trial judge, in the determination of the question, that the conclusion of the latter properly may be disturbed on appeal therefrom.'People v. Perry, 14 Cal.2d 387, 399, 94 P.2d 559, 565, 124 A.L.R. 1123.

According to the reports of the psychiatrists who examined Jensen, when the present offenses were committed he was on leave from a State hospital designated by section 6500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the care and treatment of 'the insane, the mentally ill, and the mentally disordered'.That fact, it is urged, established a presumption of insanity continuing until the time of trial and sufficient, as a matter of law, to create a doubt as to his sanity at that time.This argument is by way of analogy to the discussion in People v. Baker, 42 Cal.2d 550, 268 P.2d 705.Counsel for Jensen read the opinion in that case as holding that 'the presumption of insanity arises out of a commitment when the question of criminal responsibility is to be determind.'By a parity of reasoning, it is asserted, the same presumption should apply when the defendant's sanity at the time of trial is considered.

In the Baker case, it was contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict that he was sane at the time the crime was committed.For a contrary conclusion the People relied, among other things, upon the rebuttable presumption of sanity.The court said: 'Proof that defendant was afflicted with a permanent insanity, as distinguished from a temporary or transient insanity, prior to the commission of the crime charged will * * * dispel the presumption of sanity and raise a presumption that his insanity continued to exist until the time of the commission of the crime.'42 Cal.2d 564, 268 P.2d 714.The evidence there was 'overwhelming that defendant was not sane.'It included long history of commitments to State institutions, occurring during a period which commenced many years...