People v. Paisley

• Decision Date: 20 March 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 8211
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn PAISLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 307

29 Cal.Rptr. 307

214 Cal.App.2d 225

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn PAISLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 8211.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

March 20, 1963.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1963.

Leon Mayer, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FORD, Justice.

The defendant was accused of the murder of Alice Cooper. In a trial by jury he was found to be guilty of murder in the second degree. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. His appeal is from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

In addition to the contention that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conviction, the defendant asserts that there was error in the exclusion of evidence as to the reputation of a prosecution witness for truth, honesty and veracity and that the jury should have been instructed upon the subject of manslaughter.

The evidence will be summarized. Bill Bozarth testified that Alice Cooper managed his premises, consisting of light housekeeping rooms and apartments, on West Fourth Street in Los Angeles. In a telephone conversation which occurred about noontime on July 31, 1961, she told Mr. Bozarth that she had rented one of the rooms. Mrs. Cooper lived with her husband on the first floor of the building.

Harold Grant Smith, a waiter, testified that he had known the defendant, who was also a waiter, for approximately five and a half years. On July 31, 1961, before noon he saw the defendant in the union hall where jobs were assigned. Later in the day he went to the place where the defendant was living, which was a short distance from the union hall. The defendant did not appear to have been drinking any alcoholic beverage. While Mr. Smith was in the room, the landlady came in. He said that an exhibit (which the first witness had identified as being a picture of Alice Cooper) was a picture of the landlady. The landlady asked if the defendant was sick and the witness replied that the defendant felt a little nauseated which, he presumed, was due to the heat. When Mr. Smith left between 3 and 3:15 p. m., the landlady remained in the room.

Joseph Bagley, a waiter, lived on the premises which were managed by Mrs. Cooper. Shortly after 3 p. m. on July 31, 1961, he went to his room. Mrs. Cooper immediately called him into the defendant's room to introduce Mr. Bagley to the new roomer. The witness recognized the defendant. The defendant said that he had just rented the room. Thereafter Mrs. Cooper left the room. Mr. Bagley went to his room and returned with a bottle of beer and each drank some beer. When he left the room, Mrs. Cooper was in the hallway. She asked Mr. Bagley if the defendant was all right and he said that he was, as far as he knew.

Shelly Thome, a waiter and bartender, testified that before July 31, 1961, he had known the defendant for five or six years. Between three and four o'clock in the afternoon on that day he saw the defendant; as far as he could recall it was about 3:45 p. m. The witness was then near the telephone booth at the side entrance of the union hall. The defendant entered the building, appearing to be 'in quite a hurry,' and went over to the water fountain and drank water. As the defendant left the hall, he said, 'God damn that woman.' The defendant did not remain in the union hall over a minute and a half at the most. The witness was asked if the defendant appeared to have been drinking or to be under the influence of alcohol, and he replied that he 'couldn't say definitely one way or the other.' Upon being asked on cross-examination whether, when he entered the union hall, the defendant 'looked like he may have been a little panic-stricken,' the witness answered, 'Well, somewhat, yes.' When he saw the defendant a few days before that incident, he was quite sure that the defendant had a cast on his left arm; on July 31, 1961, that arm 'seemed to be in sort of a stiff position there.'

Harold Kade, M. D., testified that he performed an autopsy upon the body of Mrs. Cooper. His testimony was in part as follows: 'The body externally was that of an elderly caucasian female appearing approximately 65 years of age, and there were injuries evident on the head and face of this person most pronounced.' He expressed the opinion that the injuries which were visible in the area of the right eye were the result of trauma; the force used could have been a fist. The injury to that area appeared to have occurred prior to death. He further testified that: 'There were abrasions and contusions which are scraped and bruised areas on the surface of the right side of the neck. * * * There was also swelling and puffiness of the skin along the right side of the neck in this area of bruising and scraping. There was a zone of discoloration and swelling in the left occipital area of the scalp which is the left rear portion of the scalp, a quite considerable lump or zone of swelling in that area approximately perhaps 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and located approximately as I indicated in Diagram No. 3.' The injury to the left occipital region was one that could have been caused by that part of the head striking some hard surface and was more likely to have been so caused rather than to have resulted from a blow from a fist. After testifying at length as to conditions he found with respect to the deep structures of the neck, he expressed the following opinion: 'The cause of death based on the observation of the autopsy and primarily based on my findings of the neck organs were that the cause of death was a result of manual strangulation. * * * My opinion was based on the observation of these particular injuries which are of a characteristic type for pressure exerted on a neck by a hand and can not conceivably result from any other mechanism of pressure or mechanical force. * * * In my opinion this manual strangulation was the result of compression by a right hand rather than a left. * * * Because of the breaking not only of the hyoid bone but also the superior horn of the thyroid cartilage on the right side which indicates pressure from a thumb and that thumb would be applied to the right side of the individual being strangled and, therefore, it would necessarily be the thumb of the right hand. Had it been the thumb of the left hand, why, that pressure would be exerted on the left side of the neck of the individual being strangled.' Without objection from the defendant's attorney, Dr. Kade further testified that in his opinion 'one hand strangulation occurs far more commonly than two handed strangulation.'

Donald Lynch, a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, testified that when the defendant was arrested on July 31, 1961, there was no cast on either of his arms. While being taken to the police building, the defendant made an unsolicited statement: 'The defendant stated, 'I want you to writ this in your book. I was at a bar and I went from the bar to my home, where I went directly to the bathroom and from there to my room where I found Alice dead. Her snatch had not been bothered. She had just been strangled.'' The officer smelled no odor of alcoholic beverage on the defendant's breath, but his appearance was such that it was 'possible that he had been drinking.'

William R. Munkres, a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, testified that at approximately 4:10 p. m. on July 31, 1961, he received a telephone call at the police building and then went to a bar at Sixth and Bixel Streets. There he saw the defendant who indicated that he was the person who had made the call. As to that telephone call, the officer testified that 'a drunken voice informed me that his landlady, or a woman was dead in his room.' The officer, together with Officer Ham, arrived at the bar at about 4:30 p. m. and then accompanied the defendant to his room. There they found the body of Alice Cooper on the floor. She was lying on her back; her dress was up near her hips. What appeared to be blood was coming out of the left corner of her mouth. When the officer first saw the defendant he thought that he was drunk, but after he talked to him he came to the conclusion that he was not. The defendant told the officer that after Joe Bagley left his room he had walked around in the neighborhood and then had returned to his room; as he walked over to the closet to get a coat he stepped on Mrs. Cooper's stomach and stumbled into the closet. He picked her up and held her; she was limp. He did not know whether she was drunk or had just passed out in the room. He placed her back on the floor and found that there was no pulse. He then went to the bar and telephoned the police.

At the room Officer Munkres saw a 'toy dueling pistol, such as would be found on a cuff link' between the thighs of the body. Upon later inquiry by the officer, the defendant said that he owned a dueling pistol similar to the object, as described to him by the officer, and that he had had it in his possession but he did not know where it then was.

Max Schuckett was called as a witness on behalf of the defendant. On the morning of July 31, 1961, he helped the defendant move his personal property from his former residence. At that time the defendant did not use his left arm. The witness drove him to the union hall, arriving there about 10:30 a. m. Thereafter Mr. Schuckett drove the defendant to the rooming house and, after the defendant had arranged to rent a room, carried his clothing into the room. The defendant was sober. Mr. Schuckett left between 11:30 a. m. and noon.

A receiving hospital record was placed in evidence which showed that on July 31, 1961, between 10 and 11 p. m. the defendant was examined. Part of the record was a follows: 'Opinion and/or Findings: Old injury, possibly fracture of left elbow. Patient removed cast.'

...