People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 12 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. C036773.,C036773.
• Citation: People v. Moore, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 715, 96 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. App. 2002)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles McKinley MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

117 Cal.Rptr.2d 715

96 Cal.App.4th 1105

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Charles McKinley MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. C036773.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

March 12, 2002.

Review Denied May 15, 2002.

Madeline McDowell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, W. Scott Thorpe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SIMS, Acting P.J.

In this case involving an attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing a request to instruct on the partial defense of mental disease, defect, or disorder (CALJIC No. 3.32), where defendant elicited no expert testimony that he suffered from a mental disease, defect, or disorder at the time of the offense.

We also hold that substantial evidence supports defendant's conviction for attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder.

We also hold that the trial court did not err when it gave a certain jury instruction when the jury reported a deadlock.

A jury convicted defendantCharles McKinley Moore of attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664,187, subd. (a)),¹ Count One, and found the attempted murder to be willful, deliberate and premeditated (§§ 664, subd. (a),187,189.)The jury also convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), Count Two.The jury also found true that during the commission of both offenses defendant used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).Defendant received a sentence of life with the possibility of parole plus a consecutive four-year term.

On appeal, defendant argues (1) there is no substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction for attempted murder or the jury's finding of a willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder; (2)the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 3.32; and (3)the trial court's instruction to the deadlocked jury regarding further deliberation was improper.We shall affirm.

FACTS

On the morning of February 7, 2000, the victim, Christine S., arrived in her vehicle in the area near McClatchy Park in Sacramento.The victim was to attend a meeting scheduled to take place at 11:30 a.m.

The victim parked her vehicle on 35th Street and, because she was early, decided to remain in her vehicle to finish the apple she was eating.While sitting in her vehicle, the victim noticed defendant standing approximately a block away, "kind of hanging out," and looking in her direction.A brown car then pulled up and parked near where defendant was standing.The victim observed defendant walk toward the front of the brown vehicle.When defendant got within three feet of the vehicle he stopped, then backed away to his original position while still facing the car.The victim continued to eat her apple, losing track of defendant.

After approximately 10 to 15 minutes, the victim got out of her car with the intention of attending her meeting.As she walked toward the entrance of the building where the meeting was to take place, defendant came out of a doorway and lunged at her with a knife, sticking it into her abdomen.The victim likened the impact to being hit by a train, claiming defendant stabbed her with all of his might and effort.

The victim, a green belt in martial arts, reacted by striking defendant with her elbow, backing him off of her.The victim credited this maneuver with saving her life.After being stabbed, the victim entered the building and emergency personnel were called to assist.

Security guard Ruben Cantu responded to the scene and made contact with defendant, who admitted he had stabbed the victim.Cantu described defendant as quiet and cooperative.

Sacramento Police Officer Larry Barja also responded.When Barja arrived, he noticed defendant on the ground, with Cantu holding defendant at gun point.Barja handcuffed defendant and placed him in the patrol car.Defendant told Barja that he stabbed the victim because he"`just felt like doing it.'"Defendant did not know the victim, but stabbed her because "`she was here at the time.Wrong place, wrong time, so to speak.'"If the victim had not been present, defendant would have stabbed someone else: he"`just wanted to stab somebody.'"Barja described defendant's mood as quiet, calm and cooperative.Defendant had no trouble relating personal information to the officer upon request, including that he had no mental history and was not under a doctor's care.

The knife used in the stabbing had a brown and white handle and was eight inches long, with a blade that was approximately four inches long.

Amy G., who worked at the building where the meeting was to take place, made contact with defendant immediately after the stabbing.Amy testified defendant's eyes looked glazed and he appeared to be under the influence.

As she was being wheeled to an ambulance, the victim identified defendant as the person who stabbed her.

The medical testimony established the victim sustained a single stab wound to the right abdomen.The wound, three to four inches deep, penetrated the victim's fascia and abdominal cavity, causing injury to a kidney and the mesentery of her colon.The victim required surgery, and eventually spent eight days in the hospital and over eight weeks convalescing.The stab wound posed a substantial risk of death.

DEFENSE

Testifying on his own behalf, defendant claimed he had a good recollection of the events that occurred on February 7, 2000.Defendant had never met or spoken to the victim prior to that time, had never been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, nor had he been prescribed any type of medication.

Defendant testified he had been homeless and was not getting much sleep.He had no money, nor had he eaten in the day or so leading up to the stabbing.

Defendant claimed he had used rock cocaine on and off since 1991.He estimated he had smoked it one to two thousand times.However, he had not smoked the drug for two months prior to the evening of February 6, when he met some men in downtown Sacramento and together they smoked rock cocaine through most of the night.Defendant believed he smoked between three-quarters to one gram of rock cocaine, taking his last hit around the time the sun came up on February 7, 2000.

Defendant then walked to McClatchy Park and, after staying there for a while, moved across the street to the building where the victim's meeting was to take place.Defendant denied approaching the man in the brown car or intending to stab him.

Defendant testified he sat in the alcove for about 10 to 15 minutes.He pulled out his knife to clean his fingernails.At that time, defendant thought of stabbing someone.Defendant claimed he was feeling anxious, paranoid, and depressed because of the cocaine he had smoked.

After a short time, defendant got up to walk back downtown.When he emerged from the alcove, he again had the thought of stabbing someone.At that time he saw the victim, just outside the alcove.

According to defendant, everything happened quickly.He held his knife in his right hand and as he approached the victim, he stabbed her and then kept walking.Although he wanted to stab the victim, he had no intention of killing her.Instead, he just wanted to see what it would be like to stab someone.

After the stabbing, defendant walked a few steps and then stopped, dropping the knife to the ground.He then yelled to Amy and another woman to call the police and "get the lady some help, she[has] been stabbed."

On cross-examination, defendant testified it was his intent to stab someone on the day in question.Defendant believed the "dope" was the reason he committed the act, although he never mentioned this fact to the police or to the attending nurse when he was taken to the hospital immediately after the incident.To the contrary, defendant denied using drugs when asked by the nurse.

Dr. Fred Rosenthal also testified on behalf of the defense.Dr. Rosenthal, a physician practicing psychiatry and certified in psychology and neurology, testified he has treated thousands of patients involved in the use of cocaine.

Dr. Rosenthal did not interview defendant.Instead, his testimony consisted of explaining, generally, the effects rock cocaine can have on people using the drug.Dr. Rosenthal explained rock cocaine is usually smoked and acts as a stimulant, causing increases in blood pressure, temperature and heart rate.The drug is extremely addictive and produces an abnormal chemical environment in the brain.

Dr. Rosenthal further testified it is not uncommon for a chronic user to develop delusional ideas, including becoming psychotic, hearing voices and having visual hallucinations.A person in a psychotic state can become irrational, compulsive, and impetuous and lack control over his behavior.These effects can be exacerbated by sleep deprivation and by failure to eat properly.Memory can also be impaired by the use of cocaine.

On cross-examination, Dr. Rosenthal conceded that not all users become psychotic or irrational.Dr. Rosenthal further conceded the effects of rock cocaine can vary from person to person.Because Dr. Rosenthal did not examine defendant, he did not provide any opinion whether defendant was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis at the time of the stabbing.

I.

Defendant contends no substantial evidence supports either the attempted murder conviction or the willful, premeditated, and deliberate attempted murder finding.Defendant argues there is no substantial evidence of an intent to kill, or of a preconceived design or careful thought or reflection preceding the stabbing incident.

The trial court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 8.66 as follows:

...