People v. Lewis

Decision Date18 August 1966
Docket NumberCr. 11103
Citation244 Cal.App.2d 325,53 Cal.Rptr. 108
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Horace Sonny LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Walter E. Wunderlich, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Irving S. Feffer, Los Angeles, under appointment by District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

WOOD, Presiding Justice.

Defendant Horace Sonny Lewis and Carolyn E. Lewis, his wife, were accused in count 1 of murder, and in count 2 of robbery. In count 3, Carolyn was accused of receiving stolen property. Defendant Horace Sonny Lewis admitted an allegation of the information that he had been convicted previously of a felony (armed robbery, in Michigan). The defendants pleaded not guilty. During a jury trial, Carolyn pleaded guilty to count 3 (receiving stolen property), and thereupon counts 1 and 2 were dismissed as to her. The jury found defendant Horace Sonny Lewis guilty of murder in the first degree, and fixed a penalty of life imprisonment; it also found him guilty of robbery in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, and to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law on the robbery conviction. He appeals from the judgment.

Appellant (referred to as the defendant) contends that the court erred as follows: In receiving in evidence defendant's confession. In receiving in evidence defendant's fingerprints. In not granting defendant's motion for an order declaring a mistrial, after the codefendant Carolyn Lewis pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property.

On August 7, 1964, about 6 p.m., when Mrs. Saffold returned to her apartment at 4521 Dockweiler Street in Los Angeles, she observed that some of the furniture therein had been moved, and that ashes, a wet spot, and a brief case were on the floor; and, having concluded that someone had entered her apartment, she called the police. Soon thereafter Officer Bridges arrived and found the dead body of Francine D. Wallweber in a bedroom closet of the apartment. A portable sewing machine was on her body, a wire or extension cord was around her ankles, and a scarf and belt were around her neck. Other officers came there to assist in the investigation.

Miss Wallweber, 29 years of age, who was a saleslady for the Michelangelo Wig Company, gave wig demonstrations at various places pursuant to appointments made by the company. In July 1964, when she gave a wig demonstration at 1319 South Oxford Avenue, the defendant assisted her in carrying her suitcases (containing sample wigs and a mannequin head) into the house. She went there in her blue Pontiac car.

The defendant is related to Mrs. Saffold by marriage--he is a nephew of her aunt's husband. Defendant visited Mrs. Saffold at her apartment on August 5, 1964,--she did not give him a key to her apartment, nor give him permission to use her apartment. On that day, August 5, the defendant telephoned the mother of Mrs. Saffold and obtained from her the unlisted telephone number of Mrs. Saffold.

On August 7, 1964, pursuant to request of defendant, Mrs. Dillard telephoned the Michelangelo Wig Company and made an appointment for a wig demonstration to be given on that day at 4521 Dockweiler Street, and she gave the telephone number of that address, and the name of Caroline Jones or Caroline Brown, to the company.

Mrs. Saffold, who was employed, was not at home on August 7 until approximately 6 p.m. Mrs. Satches, who resided in the apartment which adjoins the Saffold apartment, heard the Saffold telephone ring twice on August 7--the first ring was about 10:30 a.m., and the second one was about 1:30 p.m. About an hour and a half later she heard the Saffold doorbell ring, and then she saw a light blue car which was parked in front of the apartment house. About five minutes after the doorbell rang, she heard screams of a woman, and after the screaming stopped she heard the sounds of running water, closing doors, and 'boxes' in the Saffold apartment. About half an hour later, she heard the front door of that apartment open or close, and she went to the front window of her apartment and saw a Negro man close to the parked car--he was wearing dark glasses and was lifting a rectangular suitcase into the car. She saw the man get into the car and try to start it--it did not start right away but finally it started and he drove away.

On August 7, about 3 p.m., the defendant arrived at the home of Mrs. Solomon on East 49th Street, and gave her a wig. She asked him where he got it, and he replied that he was helping a friend sell them. He asked her to let him know, if she knew anyone who wanted to buy a wig. Later, Mrs. Solomon delivered the wig (she had received) to the police.

About 5:45 p.m. on August 7, the defendant arrived at the home of Mrs. Williams, at 1605 West Vernon Avenue, where his wife (codefendant Carolyn Lewis) resided and was employed as a babysitter. (The defendant also had lived there from July 5 to approximately July 24.) In the presence of Mrs. Williams, the defendant told his wife that he was going to take her (wife) to some clubs that night. He returned there about 8:30 p.m. to get his wife, and while they were leaving the house, Mrs. Williams noticed that codefendant Carolyn was wearing a wig--Mrs. Williams had never seen her with a wig before that time. Neither of them (Lewises) returned to Mrs. Williams' home that night.

That night (August 7) about 10:30 o'clock, the defendant and codefendant Carolyn arrived at the home of Mrs. McAndrews, 1319 South Oxford Avenue (where the wig demonstration had been held in July)--they were in a blue Pontiac car, and at that time Carolyn was wearing a wig.

Mr. Taylor saw the defendant and Carolyn at Mrs. McAndrews' home on August 7 and at that time they (defendant and Carolyn) were in a blue Pontiac car, and at that time Carolyn was wearing a wig. They (defendants) took some of the neighbors for a ride in the car. Mrs. McAndrews saw the defendant show some money to the neighbors. The victim, Miss Wallweber, had withdrawn $300 from her savings account on August 7.

About 10 o'clock the next morning, August 8, when they (defendants) returned to Mrs. McAndrews' home, the defendant said that he was going to get an apartment. In the evening of that day, when they returned to that home, Carolyn told Mrs. McAndrews that they had found an apartment in the 1700 block on Vernon Avenue (about two blocks from Mrs. McAndrews' home).

The defendants were arrested on August 9, 1964, after officers had seen them walking on Vernon Avenue near Western Avenue. At that time Carolyn was wearing a wig and carrying Miss Wallweber's (victim's) purse. The purse contained the victim's wrist watch and keys to the front door of 4521 Dockweiler Street.

On August 9, Officer Collins obtained a warrant to search the apartment which the defendants had rented at 1735 West Vernon Avenue. In that apartment the officers found two carrying cases in which there were 12 wigs--and in one of the cases there was a mannequin head. The cases, wigs, and mannequin head were identified as the property of the Michelangelo Wig Company and as the property which Miss Wallweber had in her possession. The officers also found, in the apartment, an ignition key and a trunk key for the victim's blue Pontiac car, and a key to the victim's apartment.

A latent fingerprint was removed from a door window on the right side of the Pontiac Car. The print was identified as defendant's fingerprint.

At the scene of the arrest (August 9), while the defendant was in a police car with Officer Collins, the officer asked him whether 'he knew what he was under arrest for.' The officer said that he was under arrest for murder, and that if he wanted an attorney he could have one. Defendant said, 'I didn't murder anybody.' The officer asked where the girl's car was. The defendant 'indicated with a gesture over his right shoulder in an easterly direction; that the car was in that area.' The officer asked him how he came in possession of the car. He said that on Friday (August 7 was Friday) about 10 o'clock he was near the Sears store and he saw Jill (victim) who had some wigs, and she let him use her car to go to the eastside to sell the wigs; the last time he saw her she was walking north from Pico Boulevard; he drove to the eastside and went past a friend's house, but the door was closed and he did not stop; that he was supposed to meet Jill about 11 o'clock on Oxford Street and return the car, but he never got around to it.

Also on August 9 (after the arrest), while the defendant was in jail at the police station, he requested permission to talk to Officer Collins. That officer went to the jail and the defendant stated that he wanted to talk to the officers again. While Officer Collins was bringing the defendant upstairs to the detectives' room, he (officer) said to defendant: 'You don't have to talk to me now unless you want to.' The officer also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Bolinski
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 1968
    ...failed to meet that burden. The attorney general cites People v. Valencia, 249 Cal.App.2d 370, 57 Cal.Rptr. 567; People v. Lewis, 244 Cal.App.2d 325, 53 Cal.Rptr. 108, for the proposition that there was a substantial compliance with the requirements of Miranda. However, those cases are not ......
  • People v. Mercer
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1967
    ...63 Cal.2d 386, 46 Cal.Rptr. 622, 405 P.2d 862; see also United States v. Konigsberg, 3 Cir., 336 F.2d 844, 853; People v. Lewis, 244 Cal.App.2d 325, 53 Cal.Rptr. 108.) The third statement, namely, 'Don't bother anybody else. All the blades are mine.' came out immediately after Officer Lloyd......
  • People v. Perrin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 1967
    ...California appellate courts and the upshot of each is that Miranda is not to be given retroactive application. People v. Lewis, 244 A.C.A. 370, 376--377, 53 Cal.Rptr. 108 (hearing denied); People v. Jones, 244 A.C.A. 440, 444, 52 Cal.Rptr. 924 (hearing denied); People v. Haynes, 244 A.C.A. ......
  • People v. Salcido
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1966
    ...down in Miranda are not retroactive and are available only to one whose trial had not begun as of June 13, 1966. (See People v. Lewis, 244 A.C.A. 370, 53 Cal.Rptr. 108.) The remaining question, therefore, is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's fin......
  • 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