People v. Montiel

Citation218 Cal.Rptr. 572,39 Cal.3d 910
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Decision Date26 September 1985
Parties, 705 P.2d 1248 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard G. MONTIEL, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 21243.

Quin Denvir and Frank O. Bell, Jr., State Public Defenders, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Ezra Hendron, Chief Asst. State Public Defender, and Carol Jean Ryan, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.

George Deukmejian and John K. Van de Kamp, Attys. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Willard F. Jones and William George Prahl, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

LUCAS, Justice.

This automatic appeal follows a judgment imposing a penalty of death pursuant to the 1978 death penalty law. (Pen.Code, §§ 190.1 et seq., 1239 et seq.; all statutory An information was filed in superior court charging defendant Richard G. Montiel with the following offenses committed on January 13, 1979: count I, the robbery of Eva Mankin ( § 211); count II, the burglary of Ms. Mankin's residence ( § 459); count III, the murder of Gregorio Ante ( § 187); and count IV, the robbery of Mr. Ante. As to count III, it was charged that defendant personally used a knife during commission of the crime ( § 12022, subd. (b)) and three special circumstances were also alleged: the murder was intentional and for financial gain ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(1)); the murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel (id., subd. (a)(14)); and the murder occurred during commission of a robbery (id., subd. (a)(17)(i)). As to count IV, defendant was also charged with inflicting great bodily injury ( § 12022.7),with personal use of a deadly weapon ( § 12022, subd. (a)), and with committing an offense against an aged person ( § 1203.09, subds. (a), (b)(i), (b)(iii)). In addition, a prior felony conviction was alleged.

references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.)

Defendant entered pleas of not guilty to each count and denied all other allegations. When the jury trial commenced, defendant admitted the prior conviction outside of the jury's hearing. After trial had started, defendant moved to enter an additional plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, but his motion was denied. The jury found defendant guilty of all counts, and found all allegations to be true except for the special circumstance alleged pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(14) (the murder was especially heinous etc.).

The ensuing penalty phase trial resulted in a hung jury and the court declared a mistrial. A new penalty trial culminated in a verdict setting the penalty at death. Defendant's subsequent motions for new trial and to modify the verdict were denied and the court imposed the death penalty as to count III, the murder conviction. This appeal automatically followed.

FACTS
1. The Prosecution's Case

On January 13, 1979, defendant was living with his mother. His sister was visiting, accompanied by her two children, ages three and five. Eva Mankin, who resided across the street from the Montiel household, drove up to her home that morning with three grocery bags in her car. She began bringing the groceries into her home, placing one bag on the front porch and setting her keys and purse next to it. She noted a young man whom she identified as defendant accompanied by two small children approaching through her front yard.

As he came closer, defendant offered to help Ms. Mankin put her groceries in the house. She thanked him and refused. He nonetheless repeated himself two more times and the final time spoke in a tone of voice which indicated to Ms. Mankin that defendant "meant it." At his direction, each child then took a bag and brought it into the Mankin house. The children left, but defendant remained. Ms. Mankin observed that his eyes were "staring" and "glassy." When defendant did not respond to her requests to leave, Ms. Mankin took him by the shirt and led him out of her house. She returned inside, locking the door.

Defendant then broke the glass in the door and reached in to unlock it. As Ms. Mankin telephoned the police, defendant neared her, asking for her purse. When she told him she had called the police, defendant grabbed her purse and ran, heading across the street. The purse was later found in Ms. Mankin's automobile. Missing were two checkbooks, three bankbooks, a small knife belonging to Mr. Mankin, and $8 in cash. The police officer who responded to Ms. Mankin's call spoke with defendant's sister, who told him she had seen her brother run from the Mankins' carrying a purse. (At trial, she denied this statement.)

Soon after the Mankin incident, around 11 a.m., defendant arrived at the home of According to Maruy, when he arrived, defendant entered without knocking which was unusual. He was rowdier than normal and was "acting mean" and "giving orders," also atypical behavior for him. Lisa Davis testified that defendant "acted a little weird." At one point he started wiping a mole under her eye without explanation, and later suddenly grabbed her arm and purse and started telling her to get him a beer.

Victor and Maruy Cardova. Also living at the Cardovas' were Maruy's sister, Lisa Davis, and her boyfriend, Tom Stinnett. Stinnett, who had been in the front yard, followed defendant into the house where he helped to dress a cut on defendant's arm. In the process, he removed a piece of defendant's skin with a razor blade, applied alcohol and then bandaged defendant's arm. Defendant appeared jittery and shaky, and seemed to Stinnett to be under the influence of drugs. Defendant told Stinnett and the [39 Cal.3d 917] others that he "did a purse snatch" and gave a checkbook to Maruy, asking her to cash some checks so he could buy clothing. She refused, and Victor supplied a change of clothes.

After a half hour, Victor decided to take defendant by motorcycle to his brother's home. Victor's cycle broke down on King Street, and Victor pushed it towards a gas station while defendant dismounted and started walking up the driveway of a nearby house. Victor called his wife from the gas station, asking her to come pick them up. He then began working on the motorcycle. Approximately 10 minutes later defendant walked up to him and told him "he killed--he just killed a man," and did it "like you do a goat." Victor did not believe defendant and continued his work. Victor refused to comply when defendant told him he had left two beer cans in the murdered man's house and asked Victor to retrieve them. Defendant then left, returning soon thereafter carrying a can of beer and a paper sack.

About 15 minutes later, Maruy arrived with Stinnett and they loaded the motorcycle in the back of the pickup. On the way back to the Cardovas', defendant told Stinnett "that he cut some man's head off" and that "he was the devil and a ride with him would be on top ...." When they arrived, Victor and defendant went into a bedroom where defendant produced several $20 bills, some pennies, and a small three-inch pocket knife. The Cardovas refused his offer of money.

Victor told defendant to leave and telephoned for a taxicab. Defendant continued "flipping out" and saying he was the devil. When no taxicab arrived, Victor drove defendant to a motel. The Cardovas then left without defendant. When Maruy returned home later that day, she discovered Mankin's checkbooks, a large number of pennies, and a 12-inch butcher knife with a broken handle, covered with coagulated blood, in her bedroom. Stinnett and Maruy washed off the knife and threw it into a nearby canal. Lisa Davis saw the remaining items the next day. She kept some of the pennies and later turned them over to the police. Meanwhile, on the night of the 13th, defendant returned to the Cardovas' and inquired about the knife. Victor told him not to worry about it but that the police were looking for him.

The next day, the police contacted Victor. When he saw defendant later that day and asked if he knew what he had done, defendant nodded his head. Defendant then told Victor he was worried that he might have left fingerprints on the telephone. Soon thereafter Victor left California in order to avoid testifying. After he was arrested in Arizona as an accessory, he was returned to California where he was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.

The victim, Gregorio Ante, was 78 years old and slightly disabled by a stroke. He lived with his wife on King Street, but was alone on the morning of January 13. About 11 a.m., Gregorio's son Henry arrived to help with some repairs. Henry's son and daughter-in-law, the Halls, arrived soon after to buy a piano from Gregorio whom they paid $200. He placed the money in his left shirt pocket. Once the piano Gregorio then gave Henry $20 to buy parts for a faucet he was fixing. Henry also noticed his father removing some money from his pants pocket. Henry left around 12:10 p.m., leaving the front door unlocked. As he departed, he noticed two men on a motorcycle in front of the house who watched as he drove off.

had been loaded onto their truck, the Halls left.

About five minutes later, David Ante, another grandson of Gregorio, telephoned his grandfather. When there was no answer, he drove to the house, arriving in five to ten minutes. Entering by the unlocked front door, he found Gregorio's body. He at first thought he had suffered a heart attack. The autopsy revealed two superficial wounds on Gregorio's right cheek, two on the side of his neck, one on the lower neck, and one large deep wound mid-neck, probably caused by two separate thrusts. Death occurred because of obstruction of the airways.

When the body was found, the left pocket of Gregorio's pants was pulled out, and $180 was found in his left front inner shirt pocket. In his bedroom, the mattress had been moved off the bed, and jars containing the pennies which Gregorio collected were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • People v. Myers
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1987
    ...possibility that this instruction improperly tainted the jury's decision-making process. (See, e.g., People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 928, 218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248.) death sentence imposed ... is the result of an interjection ......
  • People v. Melton
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1988
    ...by People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, at pages 24-27, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468. (See also People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 923-925, 218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248.) The record belies the assertion. The court examined the photos, held an evidentiary hearing to determine their......
  • Montiel v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • November 25, 2014
    ...robbery special circumstance finding, but set aside the financial gain special circumstance and reversed the penalty. People v. Montiel, 39 Cal. 3d 910 (1985) ("Montiel I"). No petition for habeas corpus was filed with the state court at the time of the first direct appeal. Montiel's penalt......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1989
    ...affirm the conviction and special circumstances findings. Reversal of the death penalty is mandated by People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 928, 218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248, and People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 150-159, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430, On December 7, 1982, 17-y......
  • 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