People v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 07 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S004557,S004557 |
| Citation | 919 P.2d 1280,13 Cal.4th 799,55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 919 P.2d 1280, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5894, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9599 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George Edward MARSHALL, Defendant and Appellant. |
Lincoln Nathan Mintz, Oakland, Dennis P. Riordan, Dylan L. Schaffer, San Francisco and B.E. Bergesen, Berkeley, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attorneys General, Steve White and George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Eddie T. Keller, Raymond Brosterhous II, Eileen Ceranowski, J. Robert Jibson and William G. Prahl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a mistrial declared when a jury was unable to agree on guilt, a second jury convicted defendant George Edward Marshall of three counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664/187), and as to each count found defendant used a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5). Following a penalty trial, the same jury sentenced defendant to death. The trial court found the jury's multiple murder verdicts constituted true findings on the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations and denied defendant's motion to modify the verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.
On the morning of January 1, 1981, defendant's wife, Cynthia Marshall, her brother Responding officers found the front door of the residence slightly open. Inside they saw an automatic or semiautomatic weapon lying on the living room floor. The body of Cynthia Marshall lay in a pool of blood in the kitchen, and that of Henry Thomas on a water bed in one of the bedrooms. Defendant, wearing a blue leisure suit and a white hat with a black brim, was found in the master bedroom, holding two small children. The body of 13-year-old Jeffrey Lee lay just inside the door to the master bedroom. Defendant told an officer Jeffrey had "just come in here and fell down." Defendant was arrested and escorted down the hallway and out of the house. Defendant neither looked into the bedroom where Henry Thomas's body lay, nor commented on his wife's lifeless body, although it was in view. To one officer, defendant appeared dazed or in a state of shock.
[919 P.2d 1287] Jeffrey Lee, and a boarder, Henry Thomas, were shot to death at defendant's Locust Street residence in Modesto. A visitor, Annette May, was wounded, but escaped through a bedroom window and sought refuge with a neighbor, who summoned police.
While being transported to the police station, defendant told an officer he was very tired and had arrived home a few minutes before the shootings. Defendant stated he was in the back bedroom with his two children when he heard shots being fired, and immediately locked the bedroom door. Defendant asked, "Is Cindy all right?" The officer responded he did not know. Throughout the booking procedure, defendant appeared calm, quiet and collected. He was transported to the hospital for the taking of a blood sample, and in response to a nurse's inquiry as to his marital status said, "According to these guys, I'm single." In Detective McDonough's opinion, defendant was sober, and he detected no odor of alcohol on defendant's breath. Defendant did not appear to be under the influence of any drugs.
Annette May, 20 years old at the time of the offenses, arrived at the Golden Touch disco, an establishment defendant and his wife operated, around 8 p.m. on New Year's Eve 1980. While at the disco, May consumed many different kinds of drinks, including beer, champagne, brandy and hard liquor. She saw defendant at the disco wearing a white suit and a white hat. May remained there until about 4:30 a.m., when she left for the Marshall residence with Henry Thomas. She was feeling tired and "high." Eventually she and Thomas went to sleep in Henry's bedroom.
May awoke when it was "kind of light out." As she went to the bathroom she saw defendant in his bedroom. She could not see what he was wearing, as he was bending over a pile of clothes. She did not see Cynthia or hear any noise from the kitchen. After May returned to bed, Henry got up and went to the kitchen to get something to eat. She could hear Henry and defendant talking in a normal, friendly tone of voice. As Henry returned to bed, May again fell asleep.
The next time May awoke she could hear defendant's two children, screaming and crying in the living room. She could also hear Cynthia crying and saying, "Why, George," and "No, George." May then saw the bedroom door open and heard a gun go off. A number of shots were fired into the room. May fell from the bed onto the floor, in the 20-inch-wide space between the bed and the wall. From there she scooted under the headboard. There was a crack or space between the headboard and the bed through which she could see.
May saw defendant enter the bedroom carrying a large, dark gun with a shoulder strap. Defendant looked at the water bed and approached May. She pretended to be dead and defendant walked away. He picked up one of his children near the bedroom doorway. He was wearing a white suit and a white hat with dark trim. These appeared to be the same clothes he had been wearing earlier at the disco. After a few minutes, May escaped through the bedroom window and ran, naked and bleeding, to seek help from a neighbor, Anna Baker. It was around noon when May arrived at Baker's house. There was some dispute over whether May identified defendant or responded "I
[919 P.2d 1288] don't know" when Baker asked who had shot her.
Post mortem examination revealed each of the victims died as a result of wounds inflicted by a high velocity gun. Four bullets found at the scene were fired from the weapon found in the living room, and seven cartridge cases found in the house had been chambered in it and may have been fired from it. The weapon, a semiautomatic rifle, resembled one that Alvin Green testified he had observed defendant to possess at the disco.
Cynthia Marshall's name, with the Locust Street address, appeared on a receipt for an HK-93 rifle purchased at a sporting goods store in San Leandro in November 1979. The HK-93 had later been exchanged for an HK-91, a higher caliber model. The serial number on the weapon found at the crime scene matched that recorded on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms form 4473 filed in connection with the exchange.
No usable fingerprints were found on the rifle. Police tested defendant's hands for gunshot residue, with negative results. The clothes defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest were tested for blood; none was found. Defendant's blood-alcohol level at 3 p.m., some three hours after his arrest, was .10 percent.
Cynthia Marshall's uncle, David Moore, testified that the day after the offenses he went to the Locust Street residence, when the house was under a coroner's seal, and was admitted by a deputy sheriff. His purpose was to retrieve clothes and toys for defendant's two children. While doing so, he found a clothes hamper in the bathroom and turned it upside down. Going through the clothes, he found a white suit with blood spattered on it, along with some bloody shirts. He did not think his discovery important and did not tell the officers about it until after defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial. The police never found any bloodstained clothing, but the trial court denied a defense motion to suppress Moore's testimony concerning the bloodied white suit.
Evidence indicated that, during the day preceding the crimes, defendant ran errands in preparation for the New Year's Eve celebration he was planning at the disco. Around 4 p.m. defendant went to his job at Gallo Glass Company and worked an eight-hour shift. A fellow Gallo employee gave him a ride to the disco, dropping him off around 12:30 or 12:45 a.m. Cynthia was at the door, taking admission fees. Defendant began to pour champagne for the disco patrons, drinking as he did so.
Defendant's attire on New Year's Eve was a subject of dispute. Defendant testified he was initially wearing blue slacks and a blue leisure coat, and at some point changed into a grey coat that he kept at the disco. Two witnesses likewise testified defendant was wearing dark clothing. Other witnesses, however, testified defendant was wearing a white suit on New Year's Eve.
The celebration began to wane after 4:30 a.m., when disc jockey Henry Thomas left the Golden Touch with Annette May. Together they went to the room Thomas rented in defendant's house. Cynthia had previously gone home by herself, driving defendant's car. Before leaving the disco she traded defendant $80 in small bills for four $20 bills. Defendant testified she also took some money bags with her.
Defendant and Cynthia had been married for two years at the time of the killings, and were the parents of two daughters, Star Child and Jamilah. Both were employed at Gallo Glass Company in Modesto, and during their spare time they operated a disco called the Golden Touch. Defendant and his wife jointly owned their residence, and prior to their marriage defendant had purchased a house on Benson Avenue in Modesto, which they rented out.
Defendant testified he loved his wife and got along well with her, apart from brief Prosecution witness Patsy Thomas testified that, sometime after Christmas, she overheard an argument between defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jernigan v. Edward
...was waived by failing to raise it at trial when the contradiction between Howard's 2007 and 2011 testimony was known. (SeePeople v. Marshall (1966) 13 Cal.4th 799, 830-831, accordPeople v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 967.)(Lodgment No. 11, In re Jernigan, No. EHC 1031, order at 12-13.) ......
-
People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
...constitutional claims of Blakely error on their merits. (People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 362, fn. 5; see also People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831-832; People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 976; In re Khonsavanh S. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 532, 537; People v. Williams (1998......
-
People v. Thomas
...the prosecution from its ... obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements [citation]." ( People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280.)C. Analysis The Attorney General claims Thomas forfeited this claim by failing to object and seek a curative ......
-
People v. Sivongxxay
...and not the rule." (Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 578, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 ; see also People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 851, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280 ["[t]here is a strong presumption any error" is susceptible to harmless error analysis].) In determining whe......
-
Relevance and prejudice
...the preliminary fact true by a preponderance of the evidence, even if the court would personally disagree. People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 799, 832-833, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347. If the court determines the issue should go to the jury and admits the evidence, it may instruct the jury to d......
-
Closing argument
...Code Civ. Proc. §607(7); Pen. Code §1093(e). During final argument, counsel does each of the following [ People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 799, 855, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347]: • Places before the court the party’s major contentions. • Summarizes and clarifies the evidence adduced at trial. ......
-
Table of cases
...2d 732, 26 Cal. Rptr. 300, §11:10 Marshall v. Brown (1983) 141 Cal. App. 3d 408, 190 Cal. Rptr. 392, §11:20 Marshall, People v. (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 799, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347, §§1:410, 3:90, 3:110, 6:90, 8:20, 8:30, 14:20, 21:10, 21:30, 21:110 Marshall, People v. (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 907, 269 Ca......
-
Documents
...the preliminary fact true by a preponderance of the evidence, even if the court would personally disagree. People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 799, 832-833, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347. If the court determines the issue should go to the jury and admits the evidence, it may instruct the jury to d......