People v. Morris

Decision Date02 June 1987
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Dale MORRIS, Defendant and Appellant. F006142.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Richard L. Phillips, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant
OPINION

HAMLIN, Associate Justice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant and his brother, Richard Dean Morris, were jointly charged with the 1984 murder of Cindy Marie Morris, their sister-in-law, in violation of Penal Code section 187. 1 Following a separate jury trial of defendant, he was convicted as charged. Defendant appeals from the ensuing judgment sentencing him to prison for a term of 25 years to life.

On appeal, defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred prejudicially in admitting evidence of his statements during renewed booking interrogation and in instructing the jury. We disagree for the reasons stated below and affirm the judgment.

THE FACTS

Paramedic Donald Campbell was dispatched to 5316 Ninth Street in Keyes about 6:30 a.m. on October 6, 1984. Upon entering the house Campbell found a female body, later identified as 22-year-old Cindy Morris, 2 lying in a bed and covered up to the neck. The body was cool to the touch and showed signs of bruising on the neck and face.

At about noon that same day, Dr. William Ernoehazy performed an autopsy and determined strangulation by hand caused Cindy's death. He also opined that numerous abrasions and contusions of Cindy's face and neck occurred as the result of at least three separate applications of force.

The day before Cindy's death, Cindy's mother observed that defendant appeared to be very angry with Cindy; after defendant said something to Cindy, she appeared nervous and told her mother she was having trouble with defendant. Moreover, in the weeks preceding the death and during conversations at which both defendant and Rick were present, defendant's sister, Bonnie Rose Lankford, heard remarks that she could "bank on" Cindy's death and also overheard a conversation about a drug which could not be detected in a victim's system. Bonnie believed her brothers were angry with Cindy because Cindy did not want them around Randy. Bonnie heard defendant say that he would like to kill "that bitch"; defendant thought Cindy was a bad influence on Randy and also claimed that Cindy was going out with other men.

Bonnie's boyfriend, Danny Doster, had also heard defendant talking about Cindy "going out on" Randy. Additionally defendant had asked Doster on several occasions prior to Cindy's death if Doster could get them some pills which they could use to kill Cindy. Like Bonnie, Doster was told he could "bank on" Cindy's death, and defendant offered Doster a thousand dollars to keep his mouth shut. Doster did not take defendant's threats seriously since defendant and Rick were always "running their mouths," i.e., threatening to do something to someone.

A second sister of defendant, Rick, and Randy, Susan Marie Kreiter, and Kreiter's husband, Douglas, testified under grants of immunity about the false alibi they furnished defendant at his request. When defendant and Rick first arrived at the Kreiter residence on October 6, 1984, defendant told Susan that he had killed Cindy and that he and Rick needed an alibi. Susan Defendant asked Susan to tell the police that he and Rick had stayed at her house that night and had left town following a fight with their sister Bonnie. Defendant told the Krieters he would give them in exchange for the alibi $10,000 (per Susan) or $5,000 (per Douglas) from the $20,000 he was supposed to get for killing Cindy. 3 Several witnesses testified that defendant was to get $20,000 of the insurance proceeds, Rick was to get $10,000 for his participation, and Randy would keep the remainder. However, the Kreiters told defendant they did not want the money. Defendant told Susan that Randy was supposed to be jogging at the time of the killing but came home too soon and had to be sent out again. Defendant told Randy to be sure to be seen. Randy, dressed in a jogging suit, did in fact stop by at a neighbor's house at about 6 a.m. on October 6, where he had a cup of coffee. The neighbor, Charles Gibson, knew Randy but testified he had never seen Randy out jogging before nor had Randy ever stopped by Gibson's house at that early hour.

said both were dirty and sweaty and seemed nervous, pale, and shaky. Once joined by Douglas Kreiter, defendant related in detail the story of Cindy's death, telling the Kreiters how Cindy had struggled from the bedroom to the kitchen and then back into the bedroom. Rick told the Kreiters he watched defendant's back and at one time helped defendant hold Cindy down. When Cindy screamed, defendant put a pillow over her face to muffle the sound, and defendant told Susan he had kept socks on his hands during the killing to conceal fingerprints. He said he thought Cindy was dead at one point, but she sat up in bed and he had to "redo" it. After the second strangling, defendant checked Cindy's pulse twice to be sure that she was dead before leaving the house. Defendant told Susan he had killed Cindy because she was mistreating Randy by stealing money from him, going out on him, and neglecting their daughter and because Cindy had told Randy to tell defendant and Rick to stay away.

Shortly after this discussion about their need for an alibi, defendant and Douglas Kreiter went to the store, and defendant told Kreiter the killing had been hard, and he had not realized she would fight as she did.

Both Susan and Douglas Kreiter initially gave police the false alibi which defendant had requested, stories which both Kreiters recanted when threatened with prosecution. Both Kreiters confirmed, however, that when defendant learned on the day of the killing that Randy had been arrested, defendant wanted to turn himself in but was dissuaded by family members. Apparently it was not clear whether Randy had been, in fact, arrested or whether he had merely been taken to the hospital.

Defendant also made incriminating statements to Timothy Leroy Martin which were overheard by Martin's girlfriend Lori Kaufman. Both Martin and Kaufman testified; defendant explained to Martin that he had killed Cindy by strangling her and left the body covered in order to keep it warm. Rick admitted he was involved in the killing by helping to hold Cindy down. Explaining his motivation, defendant said Cindy was "bringing Randy down by not keeping house and that general type of stuff," and defendant also told Martin he was supposed to get $20,000 of the insurance proceeds, while Rick got $10,000 and Randy kept the rest. Defendant had supplied drugs, primarily methamphetamine and marijuana, to both Martin and Kaufman, as well as most of the other non-law-enforcement witnesses in this case; many of these witnesses testified they might well have been under the influence of one or more of these drugs at the time they heard or engaged in those conversations to which they testified. Two additional statements by defendant were introduced into evidence, one of which, that made to a police officer, Gary Dean Wilkerson, is the focus of defendant's first issue on appeal and need not be reiterated here. However, Leland Cupp testified he was present in a holding cell at the Stanislaus County Municipal Court Defendant took the stand in his own defense and testified that he had known Cindy for some time prior to her marriage to Randy. The relationship was not a friendly one, and defendant acknowledged some disagreements with Cindy because of her reluctance to let Randy associate with him and with Rick. Defendant claimed he never had words directly with Cindy, but asked Randy to speak to her about it. Defendant also admitted that during the three months prior to Cindy's death he had made statements that he would like to kill her but was not serious when he made the statements. For the year preceding her death, defendant had used methamphetamine on a daily basis, maintaining about a $300 per day habit which he financed by selling drugs to others. Defendant also smoked marijuana every day and used heroin to "come down" from prolonged methamphetamine use.

when he overheard defendant say to Rick and to other men, " 'The bitch sat up and I had to kill her again,' " and " 'It's not the first time she's done this. She's nothing but a whore.' "

Defendant had been using methamphetamine for the week preceding Cindy's death and had gone without sleep for most of that time. On the night of the killing, defendant argued with his sister Bonnie and then went to a park near his parents' home with Rick where the two smoked marijuana and Rick tried to calm defendant down. Rick went home after about an hour and a half, and defendant went to visit a friend to look for drugs. About 6 a.m. defendant arrived at Randy and Cindy's house where he told Cindy he had come to collect some money that Randy owed him. When Cindy told defendant Randy would not pay him and started "mean mouthing" defendant and threatening to tell Randy defendant had made advances to her, defendant slapped Cindy. When Cindy lunged at him, defendant grabbed her and strangled her. Defendant claimed he did not know what was going through his mind at the time, that he was just mad at Cindy and had not gone to their residence with any intention of killing her.

DISCUSSION

I. Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of defendant's statements during a renewed booking interrogation?

Relying primarily upon the decision of the California Supreme Court in People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368, 162 Cal.Rptr. 13, 605 P.2d 843, defendant first contends the trial court committed reversible error in permitting Officer Wilkerson to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • People v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1989
    ... ... The facts of this case would impel many juries to impose a death penalty, but we know of similar murders, committed in a more brutal fashion, in which defendants did not receive the death penalty. (See People v. Morris (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 380, 237 Cal.Rptr. 402 [strangulation murder of sister-in-law for insurance money]; People v. Smith (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1495, 234 Cal.Rptr. 142 [hatchet murder of pregnant woman]; see also People v. Reynolds (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 988, 233 Cal.Rptr. 596 [execution-style ... ...
  • People v. Asay
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1990
    ... ... The People contend that the harmless error test of Chapman v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 applies, as interpreted in Rose v. Clark ...         Two recent decisions have discussed this precise issue. In People v. Morris (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 380, 237 Cal.Rptr. 402, the court avoided the issue by finding that the statements in question were admissions, not a confession. The court pointed out in footnote five that the reversible per se rule regarding an improperly induced confession "may need to be reiterated if it ... ...
  • People v. Porter
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1990
    ... ... Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247, 279-280, fn. 23, 256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610; see also, People v. Morris (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 380, 392, fn. 5, 237 Cal.Rptr. 402.) The court noted that in Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 577-579, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3105-3107, 92 L.Ed.2d 460, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that even constitutional errors are only subject to a "reversible per se" standard ... ...
  • McGuire v. Martel, 1:11-CV-00330 GSA HC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • February 28, 2012
    ... ... On September 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a traverse. Page 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 On July 30, 2005, many people were at Jefferson Park in Bakersfield. Amanda Lopez was at the park with Miguel Rosales and their son. Victor Payan was hosting a birthday party at ... at p. 602, fn. 14.) In People v. Morris (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 380, 237 Cal.Rptr. 402 (Morris ) the booking officer asked the defendant, "'if we should anticipate any type of problem with ... ...
  • 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