People v. Moore

Decision Date22 October 1954
Docket NumberCr. 5553
Citation43 Cal.2d 517,275 P.2d 485
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. Patricia G. MOORE, Defendant. . In Bank

Ward Sullivan, Dockweiler & Dockweiler, Frederick C. Dockweiler, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty, Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Robert Wheeler, J. Miller Leavy, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.

CARTER, Justice.

Defendant, Patricia Gallagher Moore, appeals from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter and from an order denying her motion for a new trial. (Defendant was charged by information with the crime of murder; the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.)

Defendant, Mrs. Moore, and the deceased, Dr. Telford I. Moore, were married in 1941. Each had been previously married and each had a child by the former marriage. Mrs. Moore's daughter, Antonia Thomas, was fifteen years of age; Dr. Moore's son, Thomas, was sixteen years of age. Dr. and Mrs. Moore had a son, Timmy, aged eight. In 1946, after Dr. Moore's term of military duty was at an end, the couple moved to California where Dr. Moore opened an office for the practice of ophthalmology. The couple, together with the children, lived in the rear of the office for about fifteen months. Mrs. Moore worked in the office, under here mainden name, and in the home, caring for the family. In 1948, due to long hours of work and abusive treatment from her husband, Mrs. Moore had a nervous breakdown and was under the care of three psychiatrists who gave her 'shock' treatments. Defendant ceased work at that time for three months but Dr. Moore brought home office books and records for her to keep at home. At about this time, Dr. Moore began giving defendant large doses of sedatives and narcotics. At this time, the couple owned quite a large home which Mrs. Moore was endeavoring to keep up with only spasmodic help. Defendant repeatedly requested permission to cease working in the doctor's office so that she might devote her entire time to caring for the home and the children. These requests were the subject of many heated and abusive arguments and were refused until approximately the first of April, 1951.

In October, 1949, another woman was hired to assist Mrs. Moore in the office, and in June, 1951, Mrs. Moore on the advice of her physicians took a trip to Hawaii with two of the children. She returned in July, 1951, having heard that her husband was associating with a Mrs. Betty Blanchard. On August 27, 1951, defendant filed an action against Dr. Moore for separate maintenance. After a hearing, the court made its order directing Dr. Moore to leave the family home, to provide for the support of defendant and the child of the couple, and prohibiting Dr. Moore from molesting the defendant. On December 7, 1951, at Dr. Moore's request, the couple entered into a reconciliation agreement and resumed marital relations. By the agreement, defendant was given the home and its furnishings. Dr. Moore moved out of the home on January 14, 1952, and recorded a notice of recision of the reconciliation agreement. Defendant's attorney had many conferences with Dr. Moore in which he attempted, without success, to obtain funds for Mrs. Moore. Finally, in order to enforce the court order for defendant's support, the attorney obtained, on May 6, 1952, an order to show cause why Dr. Moore should not be held in contempt of court.

The above-mentioned order to show cause was personally served the evening of May 6, 1952, upon Dr. Moore, by a private detective and a Mrs. Jones, a personal friend. Dr. Moore at that time was living in an apartment under an assumed name. The service was had on him as he left that apartment in the company of Mrs. Blanchard. Mrs. Moore was present when the service was made although Dr. Moore did not see her.

When the defendant returned to her home on the evening of May 6th, 1952, she found Patricia Silvagni, aged sixteen and a schoolmate of her daughter, using the telephone. She told her to hang up so that she could make some calls. She endeavored to call Don Blanchard, the husband of Mrs. Betty Blanchard, and her attorney who was not at home. She called Mr. and Mrs. Holroyd, neighbors and one Lloyd Gregg. Just after the service on her husband, Mrs. Moore had driven to the Blanchard home in an effort to find Mr. Blanchard who was said not to be at home. After the calls had been made, the phone rang and defendant answered it. Patricia Silvagni, who was present, and who testified to the above facts, also testified that when defendant answered the phone, she heard her say 'I don't want to see you,' 'That's why we have attorneys,' 'Where are you?' and the defendant then replaced the receiver. Defendant then told Patricia that Dr. Moore was coming over; that she did not want to see him; that he was in Hollywood and would arrive in about fifteen minutes. Patricia then told defendant that Dr. Moore had called while defendant was not at home and asked if she could be out serving papers; that he laughed, said he had been served with papers alleging he was behind $3,600 and directing' him to be in court on May 22nd; that he laughed again, asked her if she thought defendant wanted to get 'this thing' over and settled. Patricia testified that she told him she knew Mrs. Moore did want to get it settled because she couldn't stand living the way she was; that Dr. Moore laughed again and said defendant was enjoying her martyrdom and didn't want to settle things; that he kept saying he thought she was crazy and demented; that he swore. She testified that she told him that the fact that he had been telling people he had his wife on a 'starvation period' was not going to get things settled; that Dr. Moore replied it was the only way he could get anything through her 'numbskull'; that he was going crazy; could not stand it; had to get things settled that night; that if he did not get things settled that night he was going to Mexico the next day; that he started laughing again; that she hung up the receiver when told to do so by defendant. It was Patricia's opinion that Dr. Moore's laugh was unnatrual. This conversation was related to the defendant by Patricia the night of May 6th. Thereafter, defendant told Mrs. Jones and Lydon to leave and meet her at the Blanchards; that she would bring Dr. Moore there to meet them so that the whole thing could be settled; that Patricia was to stay in Timmy's room with him. Patricia asked her if she were afraid of Dr. Moore coming to the house and defendant said she was, 'that he might do anything.' Defendant then went downstairs and sent the Holroyds to the Blanchards to wait for her.

After sending Patricia to care for Timmy, defendant went to her room and procured the gun which had been given her by police officer Sawyer for her protection. As Patricia heard the defendant going downstairs, there was a loud pounding on the front door which stopped when defendant opened it and said 'hello.' After the front door closed, Patricia heard some running around for about five minutes; then something like 'thuds'; then a sound like someone falling to the floor, and about a second later 'or about the time I heard Mrs. Moore scream, I heard a shot.'

Defendant testified that when she opened the door, she had the gun in her right hand which was hanging at her side; that she opened the door with her left hand. As she opened the door Dr. Moore rushed through the house, running from the hall into the pantry, through the dining room, back into the hall, through the pantry and again into the dining room where he hit her with his fists, knocking her to the floor so as to render her momentarily stunned and unconscious. The circumstantial evidence showed that a bullet from defendant's gun, fired from the direction where she said she was knocked down, hit the swinging door from the dining room into the pantry and ricocheted into Dr. Moore's body, passing through both walls of the aorta. Defendant testified that she tried to reach the stairs to go to her son's room so that she might lock herself in; that as she approached the stairway, she saw her husband coming toward her with his hands raised; that she closed her eyes, squeezed the gun, discharging a bullet which later was found to have missed Moore and lodged in the wall; that Moore fell mortally wounded at her feet. She testified that she did not know the first shot had been fired. She called a doctor who called the police. The police testified that on the night in question, she told them that the cuts on her face (which were still bleeding) had been caused by her husband hitting her and knocking her down; that she had been afraid of her husband who had, on many prior occasions, beaten her; that she had fallen to the floor after he had hit her and had fired at him then.

The record shows that before defendant's trip to Hawaii, her husband had beaten her or hit her on several occasions. Subsequent to her return from that trip, there is evidence to show that he severely beat her several times and her daughter on one occasion; that he was given to the use of foul and abusive language when addressing her. It appears that she had private investigators trailing him; that she had a dictaphone installed in his apartment; that she told other persons that she was out to ruin him both personally and professionally. It appears, and the evidence was corroborated, that he told numerous persons that he was afraid that if he talked to her he would kill her; that when another doctor remonstrated with him for giving defendant such large doses of sodium amytol, Dr. Moore replied that he didn't care if he did kill her; that he was trying to 'starve' her out. Other witnesses testified that they had seen defendant when she was bruised and lacerated from blows inflicted on her by Dr. Moore. There was evidence that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • People v. Bolden
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 26 Abril 1999
    ...the victim viciously beat the defendant and threatened to "put her in her grave." (At p. 304, 148 Cal.Rptr. 430.) In People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 275 P.2d 485, the victim repeatedly beat and abused the defendant. (At p. 528, 275 P.2d 485.) Finally, in People v. Torres (1949) 94 Cal......
  • People v. Prince
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 23 Diciembre 1968
    ...the offering party to press for a ruling when the court withholds a decision as to the admissibility of evidence. (People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 523--524, 275 P.2d 485; People v. Gallegos (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 274, 277, 4 Cal.Rptr. 413; Spanfelner v. Meyer (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 390, ......
  • People v. Perez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 24 Julio 1962
    ...was prejudicial, there can be little doubt. (People v. Zerillo, supra, 36 Cal.2d 222, 233, 223 P.2d 223; see People v. Moore, 43 Cal.2d 517, 527, 275 P.2d 485; 43 Cal.L.Rev. 381, It would ignore human experience and belie the dictates of common sense to entertain a contrary view. True, in s......
  • People v. Holloway
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2004
    ...evidence should renew his offer, or call the court's attention to the fact that a definite decision is desired."'" (People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 523, 275 P.2d 485.) If defendant wished to use the evidence of sexual orientation to support his third party culpability defense or (in a......
  • 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