People v. Lint

Decision Date05 July 1960
Docket NumberCr. 6711
Citation6 Cal.Rptr. 95,182 Cal.App.2d 402
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Robinson LINT, Defendant and Appellant.

Harold J. Ackerman, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOURT, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury's verdict which found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree.

An information was filed in Los Angeles County on October 8, 1958, charging the defendant with the crime of murder, in violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code in that he did, on or about September 4, 1958 feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Pamela Sue Rowe, a human being. The defendant pleased not guilty to the charge. On December 19, 1958, after six days of trial before a jury a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree was returned. An application for probation was made and denied and the defendant was sentenced to the state prison on January 19, 1959.

A resume of the facts is as follows:

On September 4, 1958, and for a short time prior thereto, Pamela Sue Rowe, aged about four and one-half years, was living with her mother; her brother, William aged about six years; her half-brother (the child of her mother and the defendant), aged about four months; and the defendant in a two story apartment located at 3020 Glenn Avenue, Los Angeles. Pamela Sue Rowe, hereinafter referred to as the victim, was the child of Maudine Eloise Rowe who had previously been married to a man by the name of Rowe. Maudine Rowe was, on the date in question, living with the defendant as his wife and was sometimes referred to and known as Mrs. Lint, although no marriage ceremony had been performed between them.

The apartment in which the group resided as a family had a lower floor containing a dining and living room area, kitchen, etc., an inside stairway leading to the upstairs where there were bedrooms and a bathroom. The building was so constructed that it was not soundproof and noises made in one apartment could easily be heard in an adjoining apartment. Mr. and Mrs. Dent lived in the apartment numbered 3018 Glenn Avenue which was next door to the apartment occupied by the defendant and those heretofore mentioned. The living room and dining room wall of the Dent and Lint apartments was a common wall and likewise the upstairs bedroom wall was a common wall. Mrs. McBroom lived two doors from the defendant's apartment in the same building unit. Mr. and Mrs. Gilbreath also were nearby neighbors of the defendant.

About 7:30 p. m., September 4, Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Rowe left the apartment house together to attend a housewarming of a friend. When they left the victim was seated in front of and watching the television. The defendant was also there as were the other two children. At about 8:15 p. m. Mrs. Gilbreath went to the apartment of the defendant to borrow a pencil. At that time Mrs. Gilbreath was permitted to enter and she went inside the dining-living room area and observed that the television set was not turned on and that none of the children could be seen.

At about 9:00 p. m. Mrs. Dent, next door, heard a heavy thud against the common wall of the apartments. Shortly thereafter she heard another thud against the wall and then she heard the victim cry out. This occurred three or four times. Each cry of the victim was preceded by a thud. The outcries made by the victim and the thudding sounds were loud enough to be heard above the television which was in operation in the Dent apartment. Mrs. Dent turned down her television set 'to see if she could hear anybody's voices.' She further stated that she thought Mrs. Lint was in trouble. She then went to her back door to see if she could hear any other voice but there was none to be heard. She described the outcries of the victim as 'painful and frightened' cries. The sounds seemed to come from the downstairs dining room area of the Lint apartment and stopped at about 9:20 p. m.

At about 11:15 p. m. Mrs. Gilbreath brought her husband home from work and at that time Mr. Gilbreath saw the defendant at the upstairs window of the bedroom in the Lint apartment wearing a light colored tan or beige shirt. At about 12:15 a. m. September 5, 1958, Mr. Gilbreath heard water running for about 20 minutes in the kitchen of the Lint apartment. Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Rowe returned to the Lint apartment at 2:00 a. m., September 5.

At about 1:05 a. m. Officer Hatter and his partner, Officer Longuevan, went to the American Hospital at 1925 Trinity Street in response to a police radio call. The officers saw the victim and 'she was a mass of bruises from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet.' The officers talked to the defendant in the room where the victim was receiving oxygen and Hatter asked him what caused all of the bruises and marks on the body of the victim. The defendant told Hatter that the child had fallen down the steps twice that day; once earlier before the mother had left (prior to 7:30 p. m., September 4, 1958) and once later on in the evening after the mother had left.

At about 3:30 a. m., Officer Jacquez, who was attached to the detective bureau, arrived at the Lint apartment and entered. He was met there by Sergeant Ellis of the Los Angeles Police Department. An inspection or examination of the steps of the stairway was made and there was no evidence of blood or other substance on the tread of the stairs or otherwise. The steps of the stairs were covered with dust with the exception of the forward part of the tread or nosing upon which one would step when going up or down the stairway.

Officer Jacquez was the first officer to enter the apartment and to inspect the stairway. Jacquez talked to the defendant at about 9:30 a. m. on the 5th of September and at that time the defendant told the officer that he was in the kitchen when Mr. Gilbreath came home during the night but that he did not see Mr. Gilbreath.

About 6:00 a. m. on September 5, Officer Lee of the Los Angeles Police Department, an investigating officer in the case, was at the apartment and examined the stairway. He 'was unable to detect anything that resembled blood spots or smears in any degree whatever. There was dust, however, a thin film of dust across the steps' towards the back and sides. There was no evidence on the stpes of any spots having been wiped away.

An autopsy was performed upon the victim by Dr. Gerald Ridge of the Coroner's Office. The doctor qualified as an expert. He had had many years of experience and had performed hundreds of autopsies. It was stipulated that he was an expert in the field of examining bodies of dead people and determining, if possible, the cause of death. In the opinion of the doctor the death of the victim was caused by acute traumatic subdural hemorrhage and other conditions including, among others, multiple contusions and abrasions. The injuries were, in the opinion of the doctor, of recent origin and some of them would not have been likely to occur as the result of a fall. He stated that the injuries to the throat of the victim could have been caused by a human hand acting in a choking force or manner and in his opinion would not have been the result of a fall down the stairs. Further, the doctor stated that if the injuries to the head had been caused by a fall down a flight of stairs he would have expected to find blood on the steps of the stairs, and he stated that in the absence of any blood on the stairs it was his opinion that the victim did not suffer the wounds characterized by appreciable bleeding from a fall down the steps. The wounds were sustained at or about the same time and (with one exception), in the doctor's opinion, the injuries were incurred between 7:30 p. m. of September 4, 1958 and 12:00 midnight of the same day. The doctor stated in effect that, based upon his years of experience and the appearance of the particular deceased victim at the time he examined her and considering the total picture, consisting of the multiplicity of discolorations, bruises, abrasions and some lacerations, that he did not believe that such injuries could have resulted from a fall. The doctor also concluded, due to the fact that blood was found in the lungs and the fact that no blood was found in the stomach that the victim was unconscious when the bleeding occurred. He stated further that there were only two kinds of situations in which he had found injuries of the intensity and distribution which were present in this case; first, in automobile accident cases and second, in the case of beatings. The doctor stated that the body of the victim revealed about 43 separate and distinct injuries, some of which would have produced a substantial amount of bleeding. As summarized in respondent's brief, it is set forth: 'There were abrasions, contusions, ecchymoses, and bruises on the top of the skull, the back of the head, at the junction of the neck and shoulders, at the hairline of forehead, at several places on the forehead, on the nose, the left cheek, the upper lip, the lower lip, the left point of the chin, beneath the point of the chin, on the upper throat, underneath the right jaw, on the right surface of the face, the right cheek, the right chin, in the helix of the right ear, on the left face, the front of the neck, and over the steno-clavicular joint.' The doctor stated that the most of the injuries, if taken separately and individually, could have been caused accidentally. He also stated that several of the injuries would be most unlikely to occur in falling down a flight of stairs and that some of the injuries, in his opinion, did not result from such a fall downstairs. The doctor also was of the opinion that the force...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • People v. Cooley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1962
    ...and casts further light on the question whether death was the result of appellant's action or of an accident. (People v. Lint, 182 Cal.App.2d 402, 415-417, 6 Cal.Rptr. 95; People v. Cartier, supra, 54 Cal.2d 300, 311, 5 Cal.Rptr. 573, 353 P.2d Considering the whole record on the subject, we......
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1980
    ...Cal.App.3d 582, 598-599, 89 Cal.Rptr. 158; People v. Gamble (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 142, 148-149, 87 Cal.Rptr. 333; People v. Lint (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 402, 414, 6 Cal.Rptr. 95.) And the record does not support his further assertion that he was excused from making an "other crimes" objection b......
  • People v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1968
    ...at pp. 455--456, fns. omitted. See also People v. Soto (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 401, 406, 53 Cal.Rptr. 832; and People v. Lint (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 402, 415, 6 Cal.Rptr. 95.) The fact that defendant was innocent, if established beyond peradventure of a doubt, would tend to show that his guilt......
  • People of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Conser Lee Shaw, Defendant and Appellant, Cr. 4703
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 9, 1965
    ...(1923) 190 Cal. 475, 476-477, 213 P. 259; Larson v. Solbakken (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 410, 422, 34 Cal.Rptr. 450; People v. Lint (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 402, 414-415, 6 Cal.Rptr. 95; Costa v. Regents of Univ. of California (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 445, 462, 254 P.2d The most that can be said for r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Appendix II Evidence Code
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Appendix II Evidence Code
    • Invalid date
    ...definition restates existing law. E.g., Larson v. Solbakken, 221 Cal. App. 2d 410, 419, 34 Cal. Rptr. 450, 455 (1963); People v. Lint, 182 Cal. App. 2d 402, 415, 6 Cal. Rptr. 95, 102-103 (1960). Thus, under Section 210, "relevant evidence" includes not only evidence of the ultimate facts ac......

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