People v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 27 March 1973
• Docket Number: Cr. 10692
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James David MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 284

107 Cal.Rptr. 284

31 Cal.App.3d 355

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James David MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 10692.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

March 27, 1973.

Carol Ruth Silver, San Francisco, court-appointed, for defendant-appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., State of California, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appeals Section, Derald E. Granberg, April P. Kestell, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff-respondent.

ROUSE, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant James Martinez from a judgment convicting him of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code, section 245.

The record shows that defendant was charged with the above-mentioned offense by information wherein there was also alleged a prior felony conviction. Defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. The allegation of a prior conviction was deemed denied. Defendant also reserved his right to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. He subsequently entered such a plea.

When the matter came on for trial, the court expressed some doubt about defendant's present sanity and directed that proceedings be initiated under Penal Code, section 1368, to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial. Thereafter, on the basis of such proceedings, the court found defendant presently insane and committed him to Agnews State Hospital until such time as he recovered his sanity.

Defendant remained at Agnews State Hospital for two years. On October 14, 1971, defendant was found competent to stand trial, and criminal proceedings were reinstituted. On November 22, 1971, defendant was rearraigned on the prior felony conviction and admitted same. Trial by jury commenced on the same day and continued until November 29, 1971, when defendant was found guilty as charged.

On December 1, 1971, the sanity phase of the trial commenced, and on December 6, 1971, the jury found defendant to be legally sane at the time of the commission of the offense. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Since defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence produced at the guilt phase of the trial, we shall adopt defendant's own characterization of the evidence as set forth in his opening brief: 'On the second of June, 1969, in Oakland, California, Defendant, youthful and physically in good health, assaulted and severely beat up a ninety-four year old Jehovah's Witness missionary, causing substantial loss of mental capacity as well as immediate suffering. No weapon was involved. Two roofers witnessed the incident and testified that Defendant ceased his attack only when one of them approached. There was apparently no provocation or reason for the attack, and none was offered by the Defendant (who did not testify at the trial)'.

Defendant's first contention on appeal is that the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecutor to allude to an admitted prior felony conviction during the sanity phase of the trial. Defendant relies upon that portion of Penal Code, section 1025, which provides that 'In case the defendant pleads not guilty, and answers that he has suffered the previous conviction, the charge of the previous conviction must not be read to the jury, nor alluded to on the trial.'

It is settled that Penal Code, section 1025, was not designed to exclude relevant evidence which tends to establish a fact material for the prosecution. (People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1061, 1081, 80 Cal.Rptr. 567, 458 P.2d 479; People v. Cook (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 25, 28, 60 Cal.Rptr. 133.)

In the instant case, defendant's prior conviction was never alluded to during the guilt phase of the trial. However, during the sanity phase of the trial, the prosecutor did bring out the fact that defendant had previously been convicted of assault, and testimony was elicited from both lay and expert witnesses that they had taken the prior conviction into consideration when forming their opinions as to defendant's sanity. At the conclusion of the sanity phase of the trial, the prosecutor mentioned the prior conviction during argument and pointed out that defendant had been convicted of assaulting an elderly man in 1966 at a time when there was no indication that defendant was suffering from mental illness of any kind. The prosecutor relied upon this evidence as supporting an inference that defendant was sane when he committed the assault for which he was on trial and that his conduct was not the product of mental illness.

Here appellant placed his sanity in issue. It was his contention that the brutal assault upon the elderly minister was a manifestation of his paranoid schizophrenia. The fact that he had committed a prior assault, also against an elderly man, and that such assault had occurred before there was any evidence of mental illness, became relevant to the question of his mental state at the time of the present assault. Thus...