People v. Livaditis

Decision Date18 June 1992
Docket NumberNo. 26407,No. S004767,S004767,26407
Citation831 P.2d 297,2 Cal.4th 759,9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 831 P.2d 297 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven LIVADITIS, Defendant and Appellant. Crim.

Fern M. Laetham, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Adrian K. Panton, Chief Asst. State Public Defender, W. Dean Freeman, Patricia L. Reber and Richard D. Marino, Deputy State Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Susan Lee Frierson and John R. Gorey, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ARABIAN, Justice.

On June 23, 1986, defendant took five hostages during a robbery of the Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry store on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. During the next tension-filled thirteen hours he stabbed one of the hostages to death, and fatally shot a second in the head. At the end of that time, the police were able to capture him as he tried to flee the area with the three surviving hostages. Tragically, a third hostage was accidentally killed by the police in the ensuing confusion.

In a case filed under the 1978 death penalty law, defendant pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of William Smith, Ann Heilperin, and Hugh Skinner (Pen.Code, § 187) 1; to five counts of robbery (§ 211); to three counts of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)); and to one count of second degree burglary (§ 459). He admitted special circumstance allegations of murder during the commission of robbery and burglary as to two of the murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). He also admitted certain weapons enhancement allegations.

After a penalty trial, the jury imposed the death penalty. The trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and entered a judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239.) We affirm.

I. FACTS
A. The Crime

Van Cleef & Arpels opened for business as usual at 10 a.m. on June 23, 1986. A short time later, defendant entered carrying a briefcase, intent on robbing the store. A security guard, murder victim William Smith, and three sales clerks--murder victims Ann Heilperin and Hugh Skinner and one of the surviving hostages, Carol Lambert--were inside the main sales area. Defendant asked Heilperin to show him some watches, and the two entered the adjoining watch boutique.

A few minutes later, Heilperin screamed, and yelled, "Please don't hurt me." Defendant then forced her back into the main sales room at gunpoint. He told everybody not to move. Smith, the security guard, tried to draw his own firearm, but defendant forced him to his knees and disarmed him. Robert Taylor, the shipping clerk, heard Heilperin's scream and ran to the sales room from his office in the rear. Defendant saw Taylor, and ordered him to enter the room. Taylor, seeing defendant's revolver, complied. Everyone else in the building heard that a robbery was in progress, and escaped. The police were alerted, and quickly arrived at the scene.

A standoff ensued. The police surrounded the building. Defendant was inside with five hostages, the three sales clerks (Heilperin, Skinner and Lambert), the security guard (Smith), and the shipping clerk (Taylor). The crisis was not to be resolved for another 13 hours.

Defendant ordered the hostages into the watch boutique. He then ordered them to lie face down on the floor except for Lambert and Taylor. Defendant forced these two to bind the other hostages' ankles and also bind their hands behind their backs with rolls of plastic tape defendant had brought in his briefcase. When they finished, defendant ordered them to fill his briefcase with watches from the store.

Defendant started to leave the building accompanied by Taylor, but he observed the police outside and returned to the watch boutique. He appeared to be angry that the police were present. He forced Lambert to tape Taylor like the others, except in a sitting position. Next, he had her dial 911. From that location followed the first of many telephone conversations between defendant and the police.

Defendant said his name was "John," and demanded that the police leave, that he be put on the television news, and that he be provided with a television set. He threatened to "execute these people one at a time." He described Smith as an "old, weak, fragile man." At some point after this conversation, defendant also bound Lambert with the tape.

Defendant turned his attention to Smith. He told Smith that he was too old to be a security guard and that his gun was "outdated." Smith responded, "You think you are a big man with that gun." This angered defendant. He told Smith that he talked too much, retrieved a hunting knife from his briefcase, and told the others to look away. He then stabbed Smith in the middle of the back with the knife. Blood from the wound spurted onto Taylor's face. Smith gasped for breath twice, tried to rise onto his shoulders, then slumped down. Still bound and lying face down, he bled to death in the presence of the other hostages, who were powerless to assist him. Defendant covered the body and the knife with a coat; the body remained that way until the incident was over.

Defendant told a correspondent for United Press International by telephone that he had only intended to rob the store and leave. He said he had stabbed Smith in the back because Smith did not follow orders and "kept talking." He felt "no remorse" for the stabbing; it was an "appropriate thing to do at the time." Defendant also threatened to shoot the remaining hostages if the police "storm the place," and said he might soon "have to execute somebody else" if his "demands [were] not met." He allowed some of the hostages to speak to the correspondent. He ended the conversation by telling the correspondent, "have a nice day."

At one point, defendant forced Heilperin to lie down next to Smith's body and face the wall. Since she was still taped, she had to "scoot[ ] on her rear" to comply. Defendant seemed angry with her because she had screamed at the outset of the robbery. He called her "Big Mouth Annie." About half an hour after defendant forced Heilperin to face the wall, during the early afternoon, he spoke with a person from Channel 5. During the conversation, defendant told the listener, "Quiet, just a minute," and "walked over, put the gun to Annie's head and pulled the trigger." Heilperin was killed instantly. Defendant resumed his telephone conversation, telling the listener that his gun had "misfired."

After he killed Heilperin, defendant's attitude changed, as if he was relieved by shooting her. He covered the body. About 45 minutes later, he allowed Skinner to tell the police that Heilperin had been killed. Around this time, defendant tied Skinner and Taylor together on two chairs to act as a "shield" in case anyone tried to enter the boutique.

By this time, Taylor thought that the hostages' only chance of surviving the ordeal was for everyone somehow to leave the building. Skinner devised a plan. Several pieces of cloth used in displays were available inside the store. Skinner suggested to defendant that they sew the pieces together into a sort of blanket, then use the blanket to cover defendant and the hostages as they left the store. The police would not be able to distinguish who was a hostage and who was the gunman, and thus could not shoot defendant. They could then safely walk to a nearby car owned by the store and drive away. Taylor had the keys to the car. Attempting to make defendant happy, Skinner also suggested that defendant take more expensive items of jewelry instead of the watches he had already taken.

Defendant agreed to the suggestions. Skinner went to another room and collected more expensive jewelry for defendant. Lambert used a ball point pen and some string from defendant's briefcase to stitch the pieces of cloth together. She started the job in the early evening; it took about three or four hours.

When the blanket was finished to defendant's satisfaction, he and the three surviving hostages practiced walking under it. The hostages would be tied together at the waist with defendant in the middle. Defendant said that when they got to the car, Lambert would drive, and defendant would be in the middle of the front seat, with Skinner to his right. Taylor was supposed to be in the middle of the back seat to act as a shield from the rear. The four practiced with the blanket for a couple of hours. Defendant was in no hurry because he wanted to wait until it got dark. During this time, defendant placed more jewelry into the briefcase.

Eventually, the time came to leave. Defendant tied the hostages together around the hands and waist, and got in the middle. Around 11:30 p.m., they walked out of the store in this formation covered by the improvised blanket, which reached to the ground. Defendant carried his briefcase and the gun. On the way out, defendant had Skinner remove some loose stones and big rings from a safe. Since defendant could not get into his briefcase, he told Skinner to place this jewelry into Skinner's pocket.

Outside, the four walked to the nearby parking lot where the car was located. Skinner and Taylor yelled that they were hostages and pleaded for no one to shoot them. Taylor could hear the "murmuring" of people in the background. Defendant threatened to kill the hostages if the police tried to stop them.

In the meantime, law enforcement personnel, including members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, had secured the area. They had decided not to allow the group to get away in a vehicle and thus "go mobile." Two deputies were armed with "flash bangs"--"diversion device[s]" that go off like "large firecracker[s]" when ignited by a pin mechanism--and were instructed to throw them at the group when it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
214 cases
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2020
    ...and did not attempt, by offer of proof or otherwise, to lay the proper foundation for that exception." ( People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 778, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297.)Even if defendant preserved this claim for review, we conclude that any error in preventing this line of qu......
  • People v. Bell
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 2, 2019
    ...658, 242 P.3d 105 ; Ervine , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 773, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 220 P.3d 820 ; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 775, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297.) "In these circumstances, an instruction may have achieved the opposite result than was intended by Duran by calling ......
  • Bolin v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 9, 2016
    ...that court's comments were meant to give the prospective jurors "a general idea of the nature of the proceeding." People v. Livaditis, 2 Cal. 4th 759, 781 (1992). If the jury somehow misunderstood this, "the penalty phase instructions ultimately given obviated any prejudice." People v. Wrig......
  • Dixon v. Rackley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 14, 2017
    ...build, made threats of violence and behaved hostilely toward deputies who transported him to and from courtroom]; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 773-774 [showing sufficient where sheriff's department received information from confidential informant about possible escape attempt b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 186, §22:120 Little v. Amber Hotel Co. (2011) 202 Cal. App. 4th 280, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 97, §22:230 Livaditis, People v. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 759, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 72, §9:140 Livingston, People v. (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1145, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 139, §9:30 Lloyd, People v. (2015) 236 Cal. A......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...motive to deceive or minimize his or her responsibility, trustworthiness would be difficult to establish. People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 759, 778, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 72. Mere inferences or speculation are not sufficient to show that the statement is untrustworthy. People v. Rowland (199......

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