People v. McCracken

Citation246 P.2d 913,39 Cal.2d 336
Decision Date22 July 1952
Docket NumberCr. 5291
PartiesPEOPLE v. McCRACKEN.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

George H. Chula, James C. Monroe, Santa Ana, and Kal W. Lines, San Francisco, for appellant.

Edmond G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Frank Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., James L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Orange, and Robert P. Kneeland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Santa Ana, for respondent.

SPENCE, Justice.

By an indictment returned by the grand jury of Orange County, defendant was charged in three separate counts with the crimes of (1) child stealing, Pen.Code, § 278, (2) kidnapping, Pen.Code, § 207, and (3) murder, Pen.Code, § 189 of Patricia Jean Hull, aged ten years. The crimes were alleged to have been committed on May 19, 1951. The indictment was returned on May 25, 1951, and on June 8, defendant was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

On the day set for trial, July 9, 1951 defendant moved for a change of venue on the ground that the poeple of Orange County were so prejudiced against him that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in that county. He also moved for a continuance. Both motions were denied, and trial proceeded on July 9. During the course of trial defendant moved for leave to file 'Sexual psychopath papers', Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5500 et seq., to which motion the prosecution objected and the objection was sustained. On August 2, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on count one (child-stealing) and not guilty on count two (kidnapping). The jury was unable to agree on count three (murder), and the matter was set for retrial on August 13, 1951. Prior to the retrial defendant again made motions for a change of venue and a continuance, which motions were denied. The second trial resulted in a verdict of first degree murder without recommendation.

On October 8, 1951, defendant was tried on his pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity on counts one (child-stealing) and three (murder). The jury returned verdicts finding defendant sane at the time of the commission of both crimes. On October 26, 1951, after denial of defendant's motion for hearing and determination of his status as a sexual psychopath, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5501, subds. (a) and (c), and his motion for a new trial, the court pronounced judgment and imposed the death penalty. This is an automatic appeal. Pen.Code, § 1239(b).

No contention is made that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. As principal grounds for reversal, defendant makes these contentions: (1) that prejudicial error was committed in the denial of a change of venue; (2) that the statutory procedure provided for determination of a 'sexual psychopath' is unconstitutional in circumscribing the right to a jury trial, Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5501, subd. (c); and (3) that the trial proceeded in a biased atmosphere.

On May 19, 1951, Patricia Hull, with her two younger brothers, attended a matinee at the Valuskis Theatre in Buena Park. Defendant had also gone to the theatre about 2 o'clock that afternoon. Between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. that day, he and a girl resembling Patricia Hull were seen entering his auto court cabin.

When Patricia failed to return from the theatre in the late afternoon, her parents began making private inquiry for her, and on the next day, after their report to the sheriff's office, a full scale search was begun. On May 24, 1951, her body, fully clothed, was found in a shallow grave in Live Oak Canyon, some thirty-five miles from Buena Park. Live Oak Canyon is in a mountainous area adjacent to O'Neil Park, a county project on which defendant had worked on different occasions. A yellow bedspread, identified as coming from defendant's cabin, was found buried about fifty feet from the girl's grave. The autopsy revealed small bruises on the girl's arms and in the area of her thighs, dilation of her rectal orifice, some fifteen gashes on her scalp at the back and sides, and three fractures of her skull. Dr. Raymond Brandt, the county autopsy surgeon, testified that the cuts and blows on the girl's head all appeared to have been delivered before death by a fairly sharp, weighted instrument, and that death was caused by consequent exsanguination. His findings and medical opinion as to the post-mortem examination were corroborated by Dr. Maurice Rice, a pathologist present at the performance of the autopsy. Defendant, a musician, lived in an auto court cabin in Buena Park. A few days prior to May 19, 1951, he had arranged with one Lee Stradley, owner of a local cafe, to play evenings in the latter's cafe upon request of the patrons. Stradley, testified that at about 8:45 p.m. on May 19, defendant in a highly nervous state came to the cafe and asked to borrow Stradley's car for the purpose of making a short drive to his cabin; that Stradley loaned defendant the car upon the latter's promise to return within a few minutes; and that defendant did not return until about 1:45 o'clock the next morning, when defendant was still in a nervous and agitated state.

Defendant was taken into custody on May 20, 1951, and he repeatedly denied that he had ever seen the girl or that she had been with him in his cabin. A search of his cabin revealed human bloodstains on the floor of the bedroom and kitchen, strands of hair and bits of fiber from clothing identified as belonging to the girl, an apron appearing to have been recently rinsed of bloodmarks, and towels similar to one found near the road in Live Oak Canyon and on which there had been much human blood. Defendant's clothing worn on May 19 was bloodstained.

Defendant testified as follows concerning his acts on May 19: At the theatre that afternoon a girl, later identified as Patricia Hull, came and sat near him. After they had talked a little while and agreed to show each other where each lived, they left the theatre and walked to his cabin. He felt thirsty and went to the kitchen for a drink of water. While the girl was looking at some pictures in the front part of the cabin, a car approached and she, thinking the people were her neighbors, became panicky with the thought that they might discover her in defendant's cabin. Defendant tried to calm her and locked the door of the cabin. She ran to the kitchen, climbed on the kitchen table, and tried to kick out the screen. In doing so, she stepped on a jelly glass, lost her balance and fell to the floor. Defendant went to the kitchen door, saw her lying on the floor, with considerable blood running from her head. He tried to holler for help, and the next thing he knew, he awoke under the bed. He then again went to the kitchen, where a great deal of blood had apparently accumulated in one corner from the girl's bleeding. He shook the girl's body, but found no signs of life. He held her head under the faucet in the kitchen sink for some twenty minutes. He then reached for a towel from the kitchen cabinet and in the process he pulled down a flat iron. At that moment the landlady entered the kitchen. As she glanced about the room, she accused defendant of killing the girl, and he hit the landlady several times on the head with the iron. He then wiped up some of the blood that was still flowing from the girl's cuts and gashes, and hid her body behind the bed.

Believing this episode was a dream of some kind, defendant left the cabin and went to the cafe to see Stradley. On leaving the cafe in Stradley's car, he remembered the girl at the cabin. He returned there, took the girl's body wrapped in a yellow bedspread, and placed it in the back seat of the car. He drove to a hotel in Santa Ana in search of a friend with whom he wanted to do some business. Then he proceeded to his mother's home in Santa Ana, where he picked up a shovel to dig a grave, and continued to the O'Neil Park location, where he buried the girl's body and the yellow bedspread. He returned the shovel to his mother's home, stopped at his cabin for a few minutes, and proceeded to Stradley's cafe.

Dr. Brandt testified that it was his opinion that the cuts on the girl's head could not have been caused by falling onto broken glass. Three psychiatrists gave as their opinion that defendant's story, as related to them, contained much fabrication. Defendant introduced in evidence mental test findings showing that he had a low intelligence quotient but was not feeble-minded. There was also introduced on his behalf reports of medical examinations disclosing that defendant probably was a 'sexual psychopath' and that on previous occasions he had been involved in molesting young girls.

On the trial of the insanity issue, the medical experts unanimously agreed that at the time of commission of the alleged offenses defendant was legally sane. It was the theory of the prosecution that defendant's killing of Patricia Hull was not only premeditated and deliberate, but also was in perpetration of an act punishable under Penal Code, section 288.

Defendant's first contention is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue. The motion was supported by affidavits of defendant and his attorney in which it was averred that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in Orange County because the enormity of the alleged crime had aroused the anger and indignation of the people of that county resulting in bias and prejudice against defendant; that there had been sensationalized coverage of the homicide in local newspaper stories, as well as by television cameras showing interviews with many townspeople extending over several days and during which they gave their respective opinions as to defendant's innocence or guilt, all adding to the popular excitement over the alleged sex crime and aiding the prosecution's case through highly emotional statements; and that many of the citizens of the county agreed that strong local sentiment and feeling existed against defendant but were unwilling to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • People v. Pitts
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1990
    ...the admonition given by the court in People v. Lee Chuck (1889) 78 Cal. 317, 329, 20 P. 719, and repeated in People v. McCracken (1952) 39 Cal.2d 336, 349, 246 P.2d 913, is especially " '[Prosecuting officers] seem to forget that it is their sworn duty to see that the defendant has a fair a......
  • People v. Feagley
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1975
    ...psychopaths were unable to benefit from ordinary penal confinement and were in need of medical treatment.' (People v. McCracken (1952) 39 Cal.2d 336, 345, 246 P.2d 913, 918.) Not only is medical treatment the Raison d'etre of the mentally disordered sex offender law, it is its sole constitu......
  • People v. King
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1966
    ...We conclude that no prejudicial error resulted. (People v. Patterson (1899) 124 Cal. 102, 104-105, 56 P. 882; People v. McCracken (1952) 39 Cal.2d 336, 348-349, 246 P.2d 913; cf. People v. Podwys (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 71, 73-75, 44 P.2d Second: Defendants complain that, despite repeated warni......
  • People v. Mickey
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1991
    ...as counsel. Determination of such a request is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See, e.g., People v. McCracken (1952) 39 Cal.2d 336, 350, 246 P.2d 913.) Accordingly, its decision is subject to review for abuse of discretion. (See ibid.) No abuse appears. As noted, Shat......
  • 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