People v. Pike

Citation58 Cal.2d 70,22 Cal.Rptr. 664,372 P.2d 656
Decision Date27 June 1962
Docket NumberCr. 7039
Parties, 372 P.2d 656 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charley Luther PIKE and Richard D. Ceniceros, Defendants and Appellants.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)

Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, David A. Kidney and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defenders, Thurmond Arnold, Jr., Palm Springs, Russell E. Parsons and Edward I. Gritz, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

SCHAUER, Justice.

By jury verdicts defendants Pike and Ceniceros were found guilty of first degree murder, and Pike was also found guilty of armed robbery. On the murder count the jury fixed the penalty at life imprisonment as to Ceniceros and at death as to Pike. Defendants appeal from the judgments 1 rendered accordingly and from orders denying their motions for new trial and Pike's motion to reduce the penalty to life imprisonment. The appeal by Pike is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

As will hereinafter be shown, Pike took the stand and in effect made a judicial confession of his guilt of the crimes with which he is charged, and the evidence amply supports the judgment of conviction as to Ceniceros. Defendants contend that they were deprived of a fair trial by reason of a variety of asserted errors, relating principally to the denial of Ceniceros' motion for severance, the voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the failure to charge a conspiracy, the admission of evidence of other offenses at various stages of the trial, the scope of cross-examination, the introduction of documentary evidence of a prior conviction, and alleged misconduct of the deputy district attorney in argument on the penalty phase. In the light of the whole record we have concluded that the defendants' contentions are without merit, that there was no denial of a fair trial or due process of law, and hence that the judgments should be affirmed.

By information both defendants were charged in Count I with the murder of Richard D. Kent on December 8, 1960. In Count II Pike was charged with armed robbery of Berta and Rudolph Fleischner on December 6, 1960. The information further charged Ceniceros with a prior burglary conviction and Pike with a prior conviction of attempted robbery (in Minnesota). Defendants' motions to set aside the information (Pen.Code, § 995) were denied, and each entered a plea of not guilty. Before the jury were empanelled each defendant admitted the alleged prior conviction. Ceniceros then moved to strike Count II of the information (armed robbery) by Pike) or, in the alternative, to grant a severance. The motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial.

The evidence as to Count I (murder) may be summarized as follows: On the evening of December 8, 1960, Jess Arriola, manager of the Lucky Auto Supply store at 8656 South Broadway, Los Angeles, was working in his store with two salesmen, Wiley Pickett and Sylvester Hnorey. Some time between 8:15 and 8:30 p. m., Pike entered the store and was asked by Pickett if he could help him. Pike drew a gun and told Pickett to open the cash register. The latter was unable to do so and Pike threatened to shoot him. Arriola then opened the register and, under orders of Pike, began putting money into a paper bag.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles Police Officers Kent and Poor had parked their car near the store, unaware of the robbery being committed inside. While Officer Poor remained in the car Officer Kent went into the store to buy new batteries for his flashlight. As he entered he called a greeting to Arriola, whom he knew, and walked towards the four men carrying his flashlight. Pike, who had his back to the entrance, then turned face Officer Kent and ordered him at gun point to move around a display table. Officer Kent was not in uniform, but his coat was open and Arriola and the others could see handcuffs and ammunition on his belt as he walked. Almost immediately after Officer Kent reached the place where he had been ordered to go, Arriola heard a shot from Pike's direction and saw Officer Kent clutch his chest and began to fall, drawing a gun as he did so. Arriola and his two employes ducked down behind the counter and heard a series of shots from Officer Kent's direction. They looked up and saw Pike running toward the front door. Officer Kent staggered after him, then fell to the floor.

Officer Poor, sitting outside in the police car, heard the shots and saw Pike run out of the store, gun in hand. The officer gave chase on foot, calling out, 'Police officer, stop.' Pike did not stop, and Officer Poor drew his gun and pursued him, pausing to fire a shot during the chase. Pike staggered momentarily, then ran to one of two cars parked near an alley and got into it. The officer shouted, 'Get out with your hands up or I will shoot.' At that point Ceniceros jumped out of the car with his hands up, saying, 'Don't shoot. That crazy guy got in my car with a gun.' Officer Poor ordered him to lie down in the street, then saw Pike pointing a gun at him over the top of the car. The officer dived behind the other car, hearing gunfire from Pike's direction, then saw that Pike's gun had jammed and called to him to drop it. Pike threw his gun down and surrendered. He had a minor gunshot wound in the left shoulder, for which he was subsequently treated.

After Officer Poor had handcuffed the defendants together he asked Pike, 'Did you shoot that other policeman?' Pike replied that 'he possibly did but he didn't mean to.' Upon their return to the Lucky store Pike was identified by Arriola as the man who had shot Officer Kent during the attempted robbery. Arriola did not identify Ceniceros at the time, but at the police station that evening he recalled that Ceniceros had been 'in my store looking around' either two nights before or the night before the robbery; and that when Arriola had inquired if he could help him, Ceniceros had asked for an item that was not in the store and then had left.

An autopsy established the cause of Officer Kent's death as a gunshot wound of the chest resulting in massive intrathoracic hemorhage. A ballistics expert testified that the fatal bullet, recovered from the officer's body, had been fired from Pike's gun.

It was the prosecution's theory with respect to Ceniceros' involvement in the crime that the attempted robbery was committed pursuant to a conspiracy between the two defendants to commit such robberies, and further that Ceniceros aided and abetted Pike in the commission thereof by 'casing' each establishment before it was robbed. In support of this theory the following evidence was introduced:

As Officer Poor was returning to the Lucky store with the defendants in handcuffs, Ceniceros repeated to him that 'the man had got into his car with a gun and he (Ceniceros) had not had anything to do with anything.' At the police station later that night Ceniceros was asked by Officer Chiquet if he was acquainted with Pike; he replied that he was not, and that he had never seen him prior to that occasion. In response to further questioning Ceniceros said, 'I told you before, this is the first time I've seen him,' and 'Why should I cop out to something that would send me to the gas chamber?' An overwhelming mass of evidence was adduced to show the falsity of Ceniceros' assertions in this respect.

To begin with, police officers examining Ceniceros' car, a faded blue Chrysler, discovered a billfold in the sun visor over the driver's seat containing a California driver's license in Pike's name, two Social Security cards in Pike's name, and three wads of folded banknotes. Also discovered was a sales slip from a store called Sy Devore's, made out to one 'Charles Clark' and dated December 8, 1960. Under the carpet on the driver's side the police found 42 one-dollar bills, a ten-dollar bill and a five-dollar bill; under the front seat on the passenger's side the police found a holster that appeared to have been cut down to carry a small automatic weapon, and a jar containing a chalky liquid; on the floor at the right rear the police found, in an envelope marked 'Naomi,' a small red box containing 12 'findings' i. e., metal clips used by jewelers to mount stones or other ornaments as earrings (People's Exhibit 67). Fingerprints of both defendants were subsequently discovered on the jar of chalky liquid.

Robert Wiggin, a garage owner, testified that on December 2, 1960, Ceniceros introduced Pike to him as 'a friend'; that Pike then left his car with Wiggin to be repaired, and drove away with Ceniceros in the latter's Chrysler; and that Pike's car remained at the garage through December 8, the night of the homicide. Louise Adatto, an apartment house manager, testified that on November 25, 1960, she rented an apartment to Pike, who gave his name as 'Clark'; that Ceniceros helped Pike move into the apartment with a woman and a small child; that she (Mrs. Adatto) thereafter saw Pike and Ceniceros go out together most evenings; and that between 5:00 and 6:00 p. m. on December 8, 1960, she observed Pike meet Ceniceros in the driveway and leave in the latter's car.

Lillian Sanchez testified that she meet Pike in October 1960, and that he began living with her and her daughter. She first met Ceniceros in October when he came to call on Pike at her apartment. Ceniceros returned on two other occasions during the last two weeks of October, and each time he and Pike would go behind the building and talk, out of her hearing. Around Thanksgiving she and Pike rentled an apartment in the building managed by the Adattos, and Ceniceros helped with the moving. Thereafter Ceniceros came to see Pike 'quite a number of times,' arriving during the afternoon; both men would leave for two or three hours in the evening, usually in Ceniceros' car; at no time would the men...

To continue reading

Request your trial
144 cases
  • People v. Cooks
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1983
    ...evidence of uncharged crimes may be admissible as proof of the common design or plan of the conspiracy. 68 (People v. Pike (1962) 58 Cal.2d 70, 89, 22 Cal.Rptr. 664, 372 P.2d 656; People v. Rosoto (1962) 58 Cal.2d 304, 330, 23 Cal.Rptr. 779, 373 [141 Cal.App.3d 314] P.2d 867; People v. Coss......
  • People v. Ruiz
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1988
    ...without prejudice....' " (People v. Hughes (1961) 57 Cal.2d 89, 95, 17 Cal.Rptr. 617, 367 P.2d 33; see also People v. Pike (1962) 58 Cal.2d 70, 86-87, 22 Cal.Rptr. 664, 372 P.2d 656; §§ 1073, 1074.) But, as previously explained, we have also held that a trial court's determination of a juro......
  • People v. Aranda
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1965
    ...will comprehend and apply instructions to limit the effect of a confession to the particular declarant. (See People v. Pike, 58 Cal.2d 70, 85, 22 Cal.Rptr. 664, 372 P.2d 656; People v. Chavez, 50 Cal.2d 778, 790, 329 P.2d 907; People v. Isby, 30 Cal.2d 879, 897, 186 P.2d 405.) In the absenc......
  • People v. McClellan
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1969
    ...which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given * * * on direct examination.' (People v. Pike, 58 Cal.2d 70, 90, 22 Cal.Rptr. 664, 675, 372 P.2d 656, 667.) The cross-examination is not 'confined to a mere categorical review of the matters, dates or times mentioned in......
  • 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