People v. Jiminez
| Decision Date | 02 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2148 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. JIMINEZ. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Anthony J. Chargin, Stockton, for appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, C. J. Scott, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
By an information filed by the district attorney of San Joaquin county the appellant was charged with murder. Upon his arraignment he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity which pleas were subsequently withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered to the crime charged. The court, after receiving evidence as to the degree of the offense pursuant to Section 189 of the Penal Code, determined it to be murder of the first degree and sentenced defendant to life imprisonment. His motion for a new trial and for a modification of the judgment were denied and he now appeals from the order denying said motion and from the judgment so imposed.
The record shows that the twenty-one year old appellant is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in California since 1945, residing with decedent's family near the city of Lodi for approximately seven months prior to the murder. While he ate his meals with the family his actual living quarters were located under a tree approximately one hundred feet from the house.
The evidence primarily consists of the testimony of the appellant who testified that he and the decedent, Clotilde Vasquez, were engaged to be married; that he customarily met his fiancee upon her return home from her night job in a Lodi cannery and did so meet her about 1:30 a. m. on the morning of the homicide and that they proceeded to a nearby vineyard. He further testified that during the course of their conversation she informed him of her intention to go to school in San Francisco and requested him to postpone their wedding until she had concluded her contemplated schooling; that she became angry upon his refusal to do so and his statement that he did not wish to wait any longer; that he too became angry and drew a pocket knife with the intent to 'afraid her' but that in his anger he lost his head and fatally stabbed her. Appellant admitted that he fled the scene of the crime without knowing whether or not Clotilde was dead and boarded a bus bound for Los Angeles. Upon his arrival there he changed his name and secured employment with a railroad company by whom he was employed until his apprehension and return to Stockton.
One of the brothers who found her body in the vineyard the following morning testified that the ground nearby appeared 'scuffled up'. He further testified that the decedent had told him she 'might marry' the defendant but that she 'wasn't, * * * well, too certain about it.' Another brother who had searched appellant's living quarters testified that from a distance the bed appeared to be occupied but upon closer examination he found that a blanket had been used so as to cause it to appear that a person was sleeping in it.
The county autopsy surgeon testified that death resulted from a stab wound which penetrated the chest and the right side of the heart, causing a massive hemorrhage. He further testified that 'there were also other stab wounds, two of the stab wounds were in the chest, anterior, four were in the back and one was in the left forearm.' He characterized the wounds as 'penetrating', indicating the use of 'some force' of 'a very sharp instrument.' No further evidence was introduced.
Defendant's sole contention is that the foregoing evidence is insufficient to sustain the determination of murder of the first degree, in particular he contends that it fails to prove that the admitted murder was deliberate and premeditated. Both defendant and respondent agree that if the murder is one of the first degree it is so only because the foregoing evidence establishes that it was a 'willful, deliberate, and premeditated' killing within the meaning of Section 189 of the Penal Code.
Respondent maintains that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment and observed that to This court feels as deep a concern for the administration of justice as does respondent. While 'justice' is a term difficult to define, we are convinced that it does not include the affirmance of judgment unsupported by substantial evidence and we think that respondent would share our conviction. We will therefore consider the evidence and arguments in support thereto and render our decision accordingly.
As evidence of premeditation and deliberation respondent refers to the testimony of decedent's brother that she informed him of her plan to go to San Francisco and argues that by reason of the relationship existing between her and appellant that it is reasonable to infer that she had informed appellant of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. United States
...Holtzoff did not consider the firing of four shots as evidence of premeditation and deliberation. See also People v. Jiminez, 95 Cal. App.2d 840, 214 P.2d 15 (Dist.Ct.App. 1950) (eight stab wounds in chest and back inflicted with pocket knife); People v. Caldwell, 43 Cal.2d 864, 279 P.2d 53......
-
People v. Daugherty
...the only 'rationale' was a 'tempestuous quarrel, hot anger, and a violent killing.' Special reliance is placed upon People v. Jiminez, 95 Cal.App.2d 840, 214 P.2d 15. In that case there was not all the evidence of threats and statements made by defendant, as well as evidence of torture, sho......
-
People of Territory of Guam v. Atoigue, 74-2445
...See R.T. 350. While evidence of flight is not sufficient alone to support a conviction for first degree murder, People v. Jimenez,95 Cal.App.2d 840, 844, 214 P.2d 15 (1950), where the jury could conclude that the flight was planned prior to the crime, it supports the finding of premeditatio......
- Knight v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County