People v. Jeter

• Decision Date: 23 January 1964
• Docket Number: Cr. 7473
• Citation: 388 P.2d 355,36 Cal.Rptr. 323,60 Cal.2d 671
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 388 P.2d 355 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Claude Leonard JETER et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 323

36 Cal.Rptr. 323

60 Cal.2d 671, 388 P.2d 355

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Claude Leonard JETER et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 7473.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Jan. 23, 1964.

Earl Klein, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Beverly Hills, for defendants and appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert F. Nelson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

PEEK, Justice.

Defendants Claude Leonard Jeter and Charles Joshua appeal from judgments of conviction of murder and robbery both in the first degree. A motion for a new trial was denied and the penalty as to each defendant was fixed at life imprisonment on the murder convictions. Defendants' purported appeals from the order denying a new trial, which order is not appealable, are dismissed. (Pen.Code, § 1237.)

Defendants, together with James Evans and Mack Burton, were charged with several counts of armed robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) and with the murder of one Zethery Marshall (Pen.Code, § 187). Thereafter the charges against Evans were dismissed, and at the trial he was a witness for the prosecution. The original jury was unable to agree on a verdict and on retrial Burton was acquitted on all charges, while the instant defendants were found guilty of a single count of robbery in addition to murder.

On the afternoon of Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 1960, a group of nine men including the decedent Marshall were engaged in gambling at the apartment of J. B. Stephenson in downtown Los Angeles. The host acted as doorman, admitting only those persons who knocked on the kitchen door and were acceptable to him.

Witnesses for the prosecution testified that at approximately 3:30 p. m. on the day in question the defendants entered Stephenson's apartment through its kitchen door; that defendant Jeter was armed with an automatic pistol, while Joshua had a knife; and that upon entering Jeter shouted: 'This is a stickup. Everybody lie on the floor.' It appears from the prosecution's evidence that Marshall at first obeyed the order to lie on the floor, but later jumped up, pulled a concealed gun from the inside of his belt, and exchanged shots with Jeter. A scuffle ensued, but was terminated when Marshall lost possession of his weapon when hit on the head with Jeter's pistol. At this point Thomas, one of the gamblers, knocked Jeter's weapon out of his hand and picked it up. Jeter retrieved Marshall's gun, and fled with Joshua when Thomas threatened them with the weapon he had taken from Jeter. The robbery count on which defendants were convicted is for the theft of Marshall's gun, which Jeter pawned the following day.

Marshall, who had been wounded during the exchange of shots, later walked away from the apartment, but collapsed in the street and died. The county medical examiner testified that Marshall suffered several fractures of the skull, but that the cause of death was a gunshot wound through the heart.

Evans, who drove the car which defendants used in coming to and leaving the apartment building, testified that on several occasions before the incident in question Joshua had suggested a holdup at Stephenson's apartment, a known 'bookie joint,' and that he, Jeter, Joshua, and Burton did in fact attempt such a robbery on the date in question. Evans also testified that after the robbery Jeter was carrying a gun which belonged to Marshall.

Defendants each testified in their own behalf, denying the robbery. Jeter stated that on Thanksgiving Day of 1960, Evans drove him to a pool hall near Stephenson's apartment so that he (Jeter) could return a gun to a man named Dennis, who had earlier given him the weapon as security for a debt; that Dennis was not at the pool hall; that he (Jeter) went to Stephenson's apartment in search of the latter and was there told that Dennis would be at the apartment within a few minutes time. Dennis was not identified nor could he be located. Jeter further testified that while he was waiting for Dennis, he participated in a dice game which was then in progress and lost steadily; that Marshall ran the game as well as participated in it; that Marshall was drunk; ¹ that as the game continued Jeter noticed that Marshall was using an illegal pair of dice; and that he accused Marshall of cheating, demanded his money back, and threatened to call the police. At this point Marshall grabbed him, but he struck back and knocked Marshal away. Marshall then drew a gun from his belt and fired at Jeter; that he in turn drew the weapon he was returning to Dennis and exchanged shots with Marshall; that the parties again scuffled; that he lost his weapon, but managed to pick up Marshall's pistol; and that he (Jeter) then fled the premises because he '* * * was excited and * * * didn't know what to do.' When asked why he shot at Marshall, he replied, 'Well, he was trying to kill me so I had to defend myself.'

Defendant Joshua testified that he went alone to Stephenson's apartment to place a bet on a horse; that while there, he heard an argument between unidentified persons originating from the area where a dice game was being conducted; that he heard some 'guy' say, 'Now you are sticking us up with these crooked dice here.' Joshua testified further that he then heard pistol shots. He could not say who did the shooting as he had 'hit the floor,' but did state that he saw Marshall pulling something from his belt immediately preceding the first sound of pistol fire. He also testified that he ran away from the apartment when everyone else did.

The trial court instructed the jury, among other things, on the felony-murder doctrine and on self-defense, but refused to give instructions requested by defendants on second degree murder and manslaughter.

'It is a settled rule that jury instructions must be responsive to the issues. The issues in a criminal case are determined by the evidence. * * * The fact that the evidence may not be of a character to inspire belief does not authorize the refusal of an instruction based thereon. (Citing cases.) That is a question within the exclusive province of the jury. However incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true.' (People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768, 772-773, 228 P.2d 281, 284; see also People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384, 260 P.2d 16.)

The evidence presented by the prosecution, if believed, was clearly subject to only one interpretation. Thus, if the jury believed Marshall was killed by the defendants during the perpetration of robbery, the only verdict which could be returned was that of first degree murder. (People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502, 66 P.2d 631; Pen.Code, § 189.) It is, therefore, evident that if instructions on second degree murder or manslaughter were warranted, they must be grounded upon evidence which was presented by the defendants, or by such evidence together with that of the prosecution.

By its limited instructions the trial court imposed upon the jury with respect to Jeter the burden of accepting either the...