People v. Pride, S004779

Decision Date06 August 1992
Docket NumberNo. S004779,S004779
Citation833 P.2d 643,10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636,3 Cal.4th 195
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 833 P.2d 643 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Timothy PRIDE, Defendant and Appellant.

Mark E. Cutler, Cool, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungern, Attys. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Attys. Gen., Michael J. Weinberger and Robert D. Marshall, Sacramento, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BAXTER, Justice.

Defendant Timothy Pride was convicted of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) 1 with personal use of a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). Under the 1978 death penalty law, a special circumstance of multiple murder was found true. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The jury sentenced defendant to death, and the trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

We find no prejudicial error affecting the guilt or penalty phases of defendant's trial. The judgment will be affirmed in its entirety.

I. GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE
A. Prosecution Case

The victims, Kimele S. and Catherine K., were Caucasian, in their 20's, and employed by the Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in Sacramento (Progressive). The crimes occurred in the Progressive building on September 3, 1984, Labor Day.

That morning, Kimele and her husband, Jeff, an attorney, decided to spend the first part of the day at their separate offices and to visit his parents sometime after 2 p.m. Kimele and Jeff had sexual intercourse and then he left for work. He returned to an empty house at 12:30 p.m. and waited for Kimele. At 2:15 p.m., she told him over the phone that she was still working but would be home in two hours. This was the last time Kimele was heard from alive.

Catherine--who was single and lived with her parents--spent the night before Labor Day at the home of her sister-in-law. The next morning, the two women decided to spend a few hours apart at work and then meet for dinner. The sister-in-law left for work first at 1:45 p.m. At 4 p.m., Catherine called and said she was at Progressive. This was the last time Catherine was heard from alive.

Because of the holiday, few people were working in the Progressive building. Three management level employees, Charles Chokel, Pat Cadden, and Steve Andrews, were there at various times between 7:15 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. to interview a prospective employee. Andrews spoke briefly with Kimele no later than 11 o'clock, and Chokel saw her at her desk around noon. None of these men saw Catherine that day.

A gardening crew, consisting of Jerry Wade and members of his household, worked outside the Progressive building from 9 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on Labor Day. Wade saw some people he assumed were Progressive employees enter the building around noon. Apparently, one or more doors were unlocked most of the day.

Between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m., Jeff called Progressive but got no answer. He assumed Kimele was running late, left a note for her, and went to his parents' home alone. He returned to an empty house at 5:45 p.m. After another unsuccessful attempt to reach Kimele by phone, Jeff became concerned for her safety and drove to Progressive. He arrived shortly before 6 o'clock and saw her car in the parking lot.

The Progressive building was a large one-story structure about 180 feet long from north to south, and 120 feet wide from east to west. The main entrance was located in the southeast corner. Inside, the building consisted primarily of open space bisected by a north-south corridor running the full length of the building. On the east and lower west sides, there were shelves stacked with files and employee work stations divided by partitions. A lunchroom, janitorial closet, and restrooms were clustered together along the main hall towards the middle of the west wall. There was an enclosed conference room in the northeast corner and a construction area in the northwest corner. Kimele worked in an alcove directly south of the lunchroom. Catherine worked across the hall, in the southeast section.

Jeff entered the building through an unlocked door in the lunchroom. Most of the lights were on. He saw bloodstains and a pile of bloody paper towels in the hallway outside the women's restroom. A blouse and bloodstained sweater were lying nearby, both wet with water. Jeff did not enter the women's restroom, but investigators ultimately found a pool of blood on the floor and blood spatters on the wall below one of the sinks. A mop stood in one corner, and several bottles of cleanser were left in apparent disarray on the sinks. Cigarette ash was found in one of the sink basins.

A long trail of bloody footprints--later determined to have been made by Catherine--led down the hall from the restroom and ended in the southeast part of the building. There, on the floor between two partitions, Jeff discovered Catherine's dead body. She was lying on her back with her legs spread apart and was naked except for a "tank top." Her pants were down around one ankle, and there were bloody paper towels nearby. Catherine had been stabbed many times and her face was battered and swollen. At first, Jeff thought he had found Kimele but soon realized the dead woman was too large and was wearing unfamiliar clothing.

Jeff frantically searched throughout the building but did not find Kimele. He called his parents and Progressive manager Cadden to see whether they knew her whereabouts. Jeff also told Cadden to call the police.

Sheriff's detectives arrived around 6:30 p.m. They ultimately found Kimele's dead body behind a table and between two chairs on the floor of the darkened conference room. She was lying on her side in a semi-fetal position and was nude except for a bra. There was a bloodstained sweater underneath her body, and her pants and underwear were down around one ankle. Kimele had been stabbed several times and her face was battered and swollen. A jug of cleaning fluid and a plunger sat on the floor nearby. Detectives also found Kimele's open purse sitting on a table near her work station. Her wallet and checkbook were missing.

Pathologist Hall examined the bodies at the crime scene that night and at the coroner's office the next morning. Kimele's jaw was broken, her body was scratched and bruised, and she had been stabbed 18 times. All but one of the stab wounds were located in her back and chest, including one that penetrated the heart. No defensive knife injuries were found. Dr. Hall concluded that Kimele died between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. A vaginal examination revealed a moderate amount of semen and minor labial skin irritation. The results of other forensic tests performed on Kimele will be discussed below.

Dr. Hall determined that the other victim, Catherine, had been stabbed 69 times. Thirteen stab wounds were located in her chest, including three that made a "symmetrical" pattern around the left nipple and one that penetrated the heart. Of the 30 stab wounds found on Catherine's back, many were "clustered" on the left side. There were bruises and abrasions on her body and defensive knife wounds on her hands and forearms. Catherine's time of death was placed between 2 and 4 p.m. Pathologist Hall apparently found no semen in Catherine's vagina and discovered her hymen to be intact. However, forensic serologist Blake detected an "extremely small" amount of semen on a swab taken from inside the vagina, near the opening. Assuming the semen was deposited near the time of death, Blake attributed it to penetration by a non- or post-ejaculatory penis. The results of other forensic tests performed on Catherine will be discussed below.

Defendant, who is Black, was employed by the American Building Maintenance Company (ABM) and worked as a janitor in the Progressive building. A few people (Chokel, Cadden, and Andrews) saw him cleaning inside the building the morning of the crimes. Wade, the gardener, saw defendant remove cleaning supplies from his car the same morning. Defendant's car was still parked in the Progressive lot when Wade left the premises at 3:30 p.m.

In the middle of the day, about 1 p.m., ABM manager, Richard Leppington, arrived at Progressive and found defendant vacuuming in the northeast section. As previously arranged, the two men toured most of the building and discussed certain cleaning chores that needed attention. Leppington noticed that the women's restroom and surrounding areas had already been cleaned. Only some additional vacuuming and "edging" between the walls and carpet remained to be done. Defendant said he would be finished by 2 p.m. Leppington left the premises at 1:30 p.m.

Leppington's Labor Day visit was prompted by events that had occurred a few days earlier. Specifically, on August 30, Leppington received a phone call from Kimele's supervisor, Kevin Legendre, complaining about the quality of defendant's janitorial services. Pursuant to company policy, Leppington prepared a written complaint and gave it to defendant's supervisor at ABM, Jesse Rubalcaba. Rubalcaba showed the complaint to defendant the same day. Rubalcaba testified that defendant reacted violently; he clenched his fists, moved towards Rubalcaba, and said the complaint was a "fucking lie." Defendant also threatened to "get the person [at Progressive who] made the complaint," and asked who it was. Rubalcaba testified that he did not respond because he did not know the complaint had come from Legendre. Legendre testified, however, that defendant knew he (Legendre) and Kimele were jointly responsible for monitoring janitorial services.

Rubalcaba immediately reported defendant's outburst to Leppington, said it was grounds for termination, and refused to continue working with defendant. All three men discussed the problem the next day (August...

To continue reading

Request your trial
797 cases
  • Jernigan v. Edward
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • November 7, 2017
    ...of corroboration of his whereabouts is not sufficient proof to require admission of the third party culpability evidence. (People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th 195, 238.) The trial court's ruling as to Glazebrook was not an abuse of discretion.Jose PerazaThe offer of proof as to Jernigan's nex......
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...appropriate to remind the jury that the penalty would be imposed upon defendant, not his family. (See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 261-262, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643 [the prosecutor argued that sympathy for the victim's family should not extend to the Defendant claims miscon......
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 28, 2020
    ...factor (c)." ( People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 462, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 233 P.3d 1000 ; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 256–257, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.) Defendant acknowledges this but urges us to reconsider the issue based on the high court's decisions in Roper ......
  • People v. Cornejo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2016
    ...determination of whether or not to admit evidence under this provision for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 235, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.) Here, Detective Kirtlan testified Isaac told him where the 9–millimeter handgun could be found, and after receiv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...5th 409, 214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, §20:60 Price, People v. (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 224, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 229, §9:190 Pride, People v. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 195, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 636, §§17:140, 22:110, 22:140 Pride, People v. (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 324, 3 Cal. Rptr. 106, §17:100 Prieto, People v. (2003) ......
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Slone (2d Dist.1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 611, 625. See "Bite-mark comparison," ch. 1, §4.13.4. • Hair comparison. People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 239. See "Hair comparison," ch. 1, §4.13.5. • Ballistics tests. People v. Lawrence (2d Dist.1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077. See "Firearms," c......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...from an object was qualified to testify to the durability, contamination, and destruction of fingerprints. Hair People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 195, 239, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 636. Human hair comparisons made by expert witnesses are admissible in evidence. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus People v. L......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...31 Cal. App. 5th 133, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297 (4th Dist. 2019)—Ch. 1, §3.2.2(2)(g)[3][b]; Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[1][b] People v. Pride, 3 Cal. 4th 195, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 636, 833 P.2d 643 (1992)—Ch. 1, §4.13.5; Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(k) People v. Prince, 40 Cal. 4th 1179, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 156 P......
  • 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