People v. Louis

Citation232 Cal.Rptr. 110,42 Cal.3d 969,728 P.2d 180
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Decision Date11 December 1986
Parties, 728 P.2d 180 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vincent LOUIS, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 22203.

Brad D. Brian and Ruth E. Fisher, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Weisman, Norman H. Sokolow and John R. Gorey, Deputy Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law (id., § 190.1 et seq.).

Charged with, among other offenses, murder with a special circumstance, defendant and his codefendants were tried before two separate juries. Virtually the same evidence was presented to each. The sole exception was the reading of the prior testimony of a prosecution witness whose credibility was indisputably minimal. Although known to be highly unreliable and likely to disappear, the witness was released from custody on his own recognizance before defendant's trial through the efforts of the prosecution; the witness promptly vanished. After trial the codefendants went free; defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. Because the reading of that prior testimony--which came from a most questionable source but plainly spelled the difference between life and death--was admitted in violation of defendant's constitutional and statutory right of confrontation, we conclude that the judgment must be reversed as a miscarriage of justice.

On the night of May 10, 1980, a man ran up to the cashier's booth at a USA gasoline station in Monrovia, robbed the attendant, Thomas Walker, of cash and Kool cigarettes, and fled firing a handgun resembling a .38 caliber revolver. Responding in his patrol car to shouts coming from the vicinity of the station, Officer Hedrich of the Monrovia Police Department saw a person run from the scene and disappear from view around a corner. Turning the corner, Hedrich caught sight of a van pulling away from the curb. He gave chase, the van attempted to elude him, but he eventually caused it to stop. Three persons were found in the van: Vincent Ates, Darlene Johnson, and Basil Louis (hereafter Basil). Walker was brought to the van and positively identified Ates as the person who robbed him. Ates was arrested but inexplicably Johnson and Basil were not. Hedrich searched the van and found only a sink, a doghouse, and several large piles of clothing. The vehicle was impounded at the Owl Garage. Its owner was Basil's brother Claudell Louis (hereafter Claudell).

About 2 a.m. on May 12, Officer Hedrich observed smoke coming from the lot at the Owl Garage and as he approached noticed that the van was on fire. After the fire was extinguished, he entered and discovered several items he had not seen the night before: a 20-gauge shotgun shell, two .38 caliber bullets, a package of Kool cigarettes, a roll of five $10 bills, two high school identification cards belonging to Claudell, and a wallet containing the driver's license of defendant Vincent Louis, who is the brother of Claudell and Basil.

About 10 a.m. on the same day Detective Spillman of the Monrovia Police Department, who was assigned to investigate the robbery, went to the Owl Garage to inspect the van and determine the cause of the fire. In carrying out this task, he found and seized, among other things, the wallet with defendant's driver's license (which Officer Hedrich had seen but not removed) and four live Remington-Peters No. 4 shot 20-gauge shotgun shells. While at the lot, Spillman was approached by Claudell, Johnson, defendant--who was wearing a black western-style shirt with white pearl buttons--and two other persons. Claudell demanded the van be returned to him; Spillman refused. Before the confrontation was over, Spillman arrested Johnson for the robbery at the gasoline station. Claudell, defendant, and the two other persons drove away in a green and white Lincoln Continental registered to Claudell.

Between 11 and 11:30 p.m. on the same day, a light blue mid-1960's Plymouth containing three men entered the USA gasoline station at a high rate of speed; one of the passengers was wearing a white cap. The car proceeded directly to the cashier's booth, where Walker, the attendant, was standing. After someone in the automobile said something about "cigarettes," Walker approached and leaned over on the driver's side. A shot was fired, the car sped away, and Walker lay dead of a wound to the head inflicted by a Remington-Peters No. 4 shot 20-gauge shotgun shell.

About the same time Deputy Baltazar of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department went to a vacant lot approximately one mile from the gasoline station in response to information that there was suspicious activity at a nearby school. At the lot he discovered a green and white Lincoln Continental. Deputy Sabalone, who had responded to Baltazar's request for a backup, felt the hood and found the engine still warm. The deputies withdrew and established surveillance over the vehicle. About 11:20 p.m., Sabalone saw two persons run from the car. The headlights went on, the car started to move, and Baltazar began his pursuit. During the chase, the Lincoln attempted to ram the police vehicle. Baltazar observed that the driver wore a light or cream-colored cap and that the sole passenger also wore a cap. He lost sight of the car for a second or two; when he saw it again, it was sitting abandoned with headlights on, engine running, and door open. He searched the interior and trunk of the car, found nothing of relevance to this case, and had the vehicle impounded at Ken's Towing.

The impounded car was Claudell's green and white Lincoln Continental. Between May 23 and May 27 Detective Spillman questioned Claudell on several occasions. On May 23 Claudell told Spillman the car had been stolen. Subsequently he made two attempts to have the police release the vehicle; on each occasion they refused because they had not finished their investigation. On May 27 Claudell again sought the release of the car; Spillman refused on the ground he had not yet conducted a search; Claudell gave him permission to do what he had to in order to expedite the release; Spillman immediately searched the vehicle and found a black western-style shirt with white pearl buttons on the front seat and a sawed-off 20-gauge shotgun and two live Remington-Peters No. 4 shot 20-gauge shotgun shells in the trunk. It was later determined that the shotgun and other weapons, including a Smith & Wesson .32-.20 caliber revolver and an Iver-Johnson .38 caliber revolver, had been stolen in a 1977 burglary, and that a group comprising Claudell and others was suspected of having committed the crime.

On June 13 Spillman went to Claudell's house--where defendant apparently was living--conducted a search, and found the Smith & Wesson .32-.20 caliber revolver and the Iver-Johnson .38 caliber revolver that had been stolen in the 1977 burglary with the 20-gauge shotgun recovered from the trunk of Claudell's car.

On June 18 a complaint was filed against Claudell, Basil, Johnson, Ates, and defendant. As later amended, it charged the murder of Walker on May 12, 1981 (Pen.Code, § 187), conspiracy to commit murder (id., §§ 182, 187), the robbery of Walker on May 10, 1981 (id., § 211), and conspiracy to commit robbery (id., §§ 182, 211); as a special circumstance it alleged that after the robbery occurred each of the defendants committed, or aided or abetted in the commission of, the murder of Walker to prevent him from testifying (id., § 190.2, subds. (a)(10), (b)). Soon after the filing of the complaint all the persons charged, with the exception of defendant, were in custody. Trial was set to begin against Claudell, Basil, Johnson, and Ates in February 1981.

In November 1980 defendant was arrested. At his preliminary hearing, held in January 1981, one Gregory Tolbert was among the witnesses testifying for the prosecution. His testimony--which plays a crucial role in this appeal--was in substance as follows.

In May 1980 Tolbert was living with his girlfriend Sheila Ates, Vincent Ates' sister, at her apartment. A day or two after the robbery on May 10, Claudell, Basil, defendant, and possibly Johnson and another Louis brother came to the apartment. While he sat in the bedroom watching television, through a half-open door he heard the visitors talk about the robbery, the arrest of Vincent Ates, their need for a car, and Walker, the witness to the robbery; he also heard defendant say that Walker had identified Ates and would have to be "taken out of the box," and that they "needed a car quick." The next day, May 11, Claudell and defendant again visited the apartment. Again from the bedroom he overheard a discussion about Johnson's arrest and a statement by Claudell to the effect that the van had been burned in order to destroy something inside. After the murder on May 12 defendant came to the apartment a third time and told him, "I took [the attendant] out."

Tolbert's testimony, however, was not immune to challenge. Significant internal inconsistencies were evident. Initially, he claimed he could attribute certain statements to defendant on the first visit to the apartment even though he overheard the conversation from another room as he was watching television, and had previously seen defendant on only a few occasions and had never engaged in more than a brief exchange of greetings with him. Second, at one point he declared that Vincent Ates was present during the first visit; Ates, however, had already been arrested for the robbery and was in custody. Finally, as to the last visit, during which defendant allegedly admitted killing Walker, he first testified that defendant came the day after the murder and that he (Tolbert) had let him in, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
212 cases
  • People v. Windfield
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 2021
    ......( Ibid. ) In reaching that conclusion, the court distinguished the holding of People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180, a case on which the defendants in this case have relied. In Louis , the California Supreme Court held that the People did not exercise due diligence because the prosecutor took no steps to prevent the absence of the witness. The defendants ......
  • People v. Hovey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 25, 1988
    ...... (People v. Enriquez (1977) 19 Cal.3d 221, 235, 137 Cal.Rptr. 171, 561 P.2d 261; see People v. Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 311-312, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149.) In People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 984-989, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180, we suggested (but did not decide) that an appellate court should independently review the record on the due diligence issue. In any event, in the present case, whether the "abuse of [44 Cal.3d 564] discretion" or the "independent ......
  • People v. Ledesma
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 2, 1987
    ...... As we shall explain, the argument is without merit. .         Our standard of review in these circumstances is settled. A referee's legal conclusions are subject to independent review. (Cf. People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 985-986, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 119-120, 728 P.2d 180, 189-190 [discussing appellate review of trial court determinations generally].) As to findings of fact, they "are, of course, not binding on this court, and we may reach a different conclusion on an independent examination of ......
  • People v. Gordon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 21, 1990
    ...... (Compare, e.g., People v. Otte (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1522, [50 Cal.3d 1246] 535-1536, 263 Cal.Rptr. 393 [suggesting review de novo] with People v. Alderrou (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1074, 1078, 1080, 236 Cal.Rptr. 740 [assuming review for abuse of discretion]; see People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 985-987, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180 [dealing generally with standards of review].) .         But having scrutinized the record in its entirety, including the sealed transcript of the in camera proceedings, we are of the opinion that the court's determination was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...5-B, §2.2 People v. Loudermilk, 195 Cal. App. 3d 996, 241 Cal. Rptr. 208 (1st Dist. 1987)—Ch. 5-A, §3.2.2(1)(c) People v. Louis, 42 Cal. 3d 969, 232 Cal. Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180 (1986)—Ch. 3-B, §1.2.2 People v. Love, 75 Cal. App. 3d 928, 142 Cal. Rptr. 532 (1st Dist. 1977)—Ch. 7, §3.1.1(3)(......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...3d 169, §10:170 Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 757, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571, §§17:60, 17:120 Louis, People v. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 969, 232 Cal. Rptr. 110, §9:60 Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Philo Lumber Company (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 1212, 210 Cal. Rptr. 368, §19:90 Love ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...that a party is able to personally cross-examine witnesses and allow the jury to observe the declarant’s demeanor. People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 969, 982, 232 Cal. Rptr. 110. California allows introduction of the witness’ prior recorded testimony if the prosecution has used reasonable d......
  • Mixed Questions of Fact and Law: Deferential or Plenary Review?. Don't be put off by the formulaic presentation of the clearly erroneous standard of review of factual findings in the context of mixed questions of law and fact
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Apellate Practice No. 39-3, June 2020
    • June 1, 2020
    ...cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury”); Mahaffey v. Page , 162 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1998); People v. Louis , 728 P.2d 180, 191 (Cal. 1986) (“When, as here, the application of law to fact requires us to make value judgments about the law and its policy underpinning......
  • 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