People v. Memro
Decision Date | 30 November 1995 |
Docket Number | No. S004770,S004770 |
Citation | 12 Cal.App.4th 783,905 P2d 1305,47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219,11 Cal.4th 786 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 12 Cal.4th 783D, 905 P.2d 1305, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9091, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,919 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harold Ray MEMRO, Defendant and Appellant. |
[11 Cal.4th 810] [905 P.2d 1314] Thomas J. Nolan, Nolan & Armstrong, Palo Alto, Andrew H. Parnes, Ketchum, ID, for Appellant.
Edward T. Fogel, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, for Respondent.
In People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446 (Memro I), we reversed a judgment imposing a death sentence [11 Cal.4th 811] under the 1977 death penalty statute. The district attorney filed a new information in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 13, 1986, charging defendant with the murders of Scott Fowler and Ralph Chavez, Jr., in July 1976, and of Carl Carter, Jr., in October 1978. The information also contained a multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation.
A jury heard the evidence and found defendant guilty of the first degree murders of Carter and Chavez and of the second degree murder of Fowler. It found the special circumstance true. After a penalty trial, it returned a verdict of death and judgment was entered accordingly. This appeal proceeds automatically.
For reasons that will appear, we affirm the judgment.
A jogger found the bodies of Scott Fowler and Ralph Chavez, Jr., sprawled 178 feet apart near a pond in John Anson Ford Park in Bell Gardens early on the morning of July 26, 1976. Fowler was 12 years old, Chavez 10. Each victim's throat had been cut with a sharp instrument. Witnesses testified that the boys had been fishing for hours the day before, staying well into the evening. They were placing their catch in a plastic gallon-size milk jug with the top excised so as to keep the handle intact. The police found the jug nearby, along with bologna wrappers, which were evidence of the boys' picnic. A trail of blood suggested that Chavez had tried to run after the attack. The medical examiner fixed the time of death at about midnight.
Carl Carter, Jr., was reported missing in South Gate on October 22, 1978. He was seven years old. His body was found some five days later amidst dense scrub alongside a road. He had been strangled to death--a cord was still bound around his neck. An enzyme found in his anal area suggested an attempt at sodomy.
The prosecution's case was based almost entirely on defendant's confession, which he gave during the last of three interrogations at the South Gate city jail.
The police became aware of defendant when they were interviewing individuals who might have information regarding Carter's whereabouts. [11 Cal.4th 812] They went to his apartment, and he introduced himself by saying, in the words of Officer William Sims, At the time, there was wide awareness in South Gate that Carter was missing.
At the apartment, defendant and the police discussed Carter's disappearance. Defendant either said nothing about Carter at all or provided no useful information. The police returned to the Carter residence, and while they were there, defendant came over to drop off a part for his Volkswagen with Carl Carter, Sr., an occasional automobile repairer. Officer Sims testified that he asked him where he had been and what he might have seen on the night he dropped off his car. Officer Sims testified that he told him, "
Officer Sims then arrested defendant for kidnapping.
[905 P.2d 1315] There followed the three interrogations that evening at the jail. At the third, four officers were present: Sims, Lloyd Carter, Louie Gluhak, and Dennis Greene. Officer Sims treated defendant severely and Officer Carter more kindly. If this was a psychological tactic, it evidently worked, for Officer Carter, an experienced police investigator, won defendant's confidence. Officer Carter took notes of his confession, but it was not transcribed or taped--in fact defendant requested
that all policemen except Officer Carter leave the room so that he could check it for bugs before making a statementAfter they returned, defendant told his story. Officer Carter testified that he "stated that he had known Carl Carter, Jr.'s, father for quite some time, that he was a personal friend of his, [and] that he was a mechanic....
Carter said he wanted a soft drink and defendant invited him into his car and drove him to his apartment.
Shortly thereafter Carl, Jr., said he wanted to leave. This made defendant angry. He He then tried to engage in anal intercourse with Carter's dead body.
After this, he knew that he needed an alibi, and he decided to use the victim's father for the purpose. "[H]e knew that he had to get his Volkswagen fixed so he tried to call Carl, Sr., to see if he could get his Volkswagen fixed and Carl said that he could."
Defendant arranged to have a friend drive with him to the Carter home. Before the friend arrived, a neighbor boy stopped by and with "Carl, Jr., ... still laying in on the bed, [defendant] conversed with [the neighbor boy] for quite sometime, and started showing [him] slide pictures of naked girls." The boy left after helping him jump-start his Volkswagen.
He drove the car over to the Carter residence and dropped it off. He returned to his apartment, He "dumped the body and the blanket over the side of" a rural road. The next morning, after a troubled sleep, he went to work. He "had heard about Carl missing because it had been in the newspapers...."
Officer Carter testified that defendant told him he had tied a square knot in the clothesline wrapped around Carl, Jr.'s neck, and that he had enclosed his shoes in a red suitcase in his garage and put it under a workbench.
Officer Carter further testified that he invited defendant to confess to any other crimes he might have committed.
Defendant then told Officer Carter that about two years before he had visited John Anson Ford Park in Bell Gardens on a red Yamaha motorcycle to take pictures of young boys. About dusk he saw two young boys walking toward a pond with fishing poles and what he believed to be a sack lunch.
He discarded his knife at work the next day.
Officer Carter testified that defendant then "started crying and sobbing, and he said, 'Let's go find Carl, Jr.'s, body.' " The police escorted him to the area he had described and found the decomposing body, clad in underwear. A cord was still bound around the neck. Although defendant agreed to take the police to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Denard
...a different outcome.’ (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 529 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119].)" (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 818, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305 ; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) Becau......
-
Delatorre v. Haws, 2: 09 - cv - 1974 - TJB
...a reasonable doubt that the actor killed with malice aforethought, intent to kill, premeditation, and deliberation." (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 862; see also Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189.) Intent to kill is rarely proved by direct evidence; rather, it must usually be inferred from cir......
-
People v. Kerley
...probative value. ( People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 532, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 49 P.3d 1032 ; see People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 866, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305 ; People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 318, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 30, 132 P.3d 235.) A trial court's exercise of......
-
In re Reno
...to death—a cord was still bound around his neck. An enzyme found in his anal area suggested an attempt at sodomy." (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 811 (Memro II).) The police became aware of petitioner Reno when they were interviewing people who might know where Carl Jr. could be fo......
-
Appendix E
...by denying the motion. The People agree that the judgment must be reversed as a consequence, and we so order. (See People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 847 [recognizing that the People have the burden to show that errors in admitting evidence under the Fourth Amendment are harmless beyond......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Melton, 44 Cal. 3d 713, 244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741 (1988)—Ch. 2, §10; §10.1.1(2)(a); Ch. 4-B, §3.3.2 People v. Memro, 11 Cal. 4th 786, 12 Cal. 4th 783d, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305 (1995)—Ch. 6, §3.5 People v. Memro, 38 Cal. 3d 658, 214 Cal. Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446 (......
-
Chapter 6 - §3. Application to specific evidence
...to appear as young as victim, and because many who view such material are not motivated to molest children); People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 864-65 (undue prejudice of D's possession of adult-oriented magazines was outweighed by their probative value to demonstrate D's intent to comm......