People v. Robillard

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McCOMB; GIBSON
• Citation: People v. Robillard, 55 Cal.2d 88, 10 Cal.Rptr. 167, 358 P.2d 295 (Cal. 1960)
• Decision Date: 29 December 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 6623
• Parties: , 358 P.2d 295, 83 A.L.R.2d 1086 PEOPLE, Respondent, v. Alexander ROBILLARD XIV, Appellant.

Page 167

10 Cal.Rptr. 167

55 Cal.2d 88, 358 P.2d 295, 83 A.L.R.2d 1086

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. Alexander ROBILLARD XIV, Appellant.

Cr. 6623.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Dec. 29, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1961.

Vincent W. Hallinan, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith and John S. McInerny, Deputy Attys. Gen., Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty., and Robert Carey, Asst. Dist. Atty., Redwood City, for respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal from a judgment of guilty of murder in the first degree.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of murder and stipulated that the trial judge should determine the degree of defendant's crime and that a jury should be impanelled for the sole purpose of rendering an advisory verdict to the judge on this subject.

The jury returned an advisory verdict determining the degree of the crime to be murder in the first degree, and the trial judge concurred therein. Thereafter the jury returned a verdict setting the penalty at death.

Facts: About 4 a. m. on August 5, 1959, Officer Eugene Doran of the Hillsborough police department stopped defendant in the area of Bunker Hill Road and Skyline Boulevard in San Mateo County. Defendant had just finished looting some cars in the Hillsborough area, although Officer Doran did not know this.

Defendant was driving a stolen car with stolen license plates. At the time, he was on probation from a burglary conviction in San Mateo County and also a Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313 conviction in the federal courts.

Officer Doran used his police radio to call the Hillsborough police station to see if the car was stolen, and was informed by his dispatcher that the car was 'all right.'

The officer's transmission had been overheard by the San Bruno Police dispatcher, who radioed to the Hillsborough dispatcher to wait a moment while the records were checked. The San Bruno transmission could be heard over the radio receiver in Officer Doran's patrol car.

Two minutes later the San Bruno police confirmed that the license plates had been stloen from a car in their city. When Officer Offield, the Hillsborough dispatcher, tried to relay this information to Officer Doran, he was unable to contact him.

Officer Offield then alerted the other police departments in the area, and shortly thereafter, about 4:50 a. m., Belmont Police Officers Stepheson and Harrington found Officer Doran's body and the patrol car. Officer Doran was lying dead in a pool of blood after having been shot six times. His pistol had been taken from his body, and beside the body was a duplicate driver's license application issued in the name of 'David Stephen Kehoe,' which defendant had had issued to himself on the day prior to the murder.

On August 8 defendant was arrested by Salt Lake City police officers in a hotel in that city where he had registered under an assumed name. Defendant admitted he had been present at the time Officer Doran had been murdered. He denied that he had done the actual shooting. At the time of the trial, however, he admitted that he had shot Officer Doran after the officer had attempted to draw his own pistol when defendant had the 'drop' on him.

These questions are presented for determination:

First. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree?

Yes. It is the trier of fact, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. (People v. Love, 53 Cal.2d 843, 850 (1), (2), 3 Cal.Rptr. 665; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 680 (1) et seq., 104 P.2d 778; People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885 (4), (5), 256 P.2d 911.

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts. in the instant case, it appears that on the night of the murder defendant was on probation for two separate crimes and that he had committed many more offenses for which he had not yet been apprehended.

He had just previously learned that Portillo, his confederate in one of his many robberies, had been apprehended and had probably implicated him in a robbery they had committed on June 19. Defendant stated he knew he was 'hot' and had even considered faking his death so that he could disappear and avoid the probationary terms of his prior convictions.

At the time he was stopped by Officer Doran, he was driving a stolen vehicle with license plates stolen from another car. He had just left the Hillsborough area after rifling some automobiles there and stealing some identification papers he found in them. At his apartment he had another stolen vehicle and a mass of other stolen items a television set, identification papers, credit cards, license plates etc. He fully appreciated that if these facts were discovered he would be sent to either the state or the federal prison.

Defendant testified that he was driving along Skyline Boulevard in San Mateo County around 4 a. m. on the morning of the murder, when he noticed that a police car was following him. He first tried to lose the officer by turning off the main road, but he stopped as soon as the policeman turned on the patrol car's red light. He hid the false identification which he had just stolen in Hillsborough and then walked back to see what Officer Doran wanted.

He said that the officer asked him the usual questions, and he showed the officer the application for a driver's license that he had had issued to himself under the name of David Stephen Kehoe the day before. The officer then questioned him about the lack of registration on the vehicle, but he was able to satisfy the officer's questions on this subject.

He further testified that the officer then returned to the patrol car and checked with his office by radio to see if defendant's car was stolen and was informed that it was all right. Defendant then started to return. to his car to leave, when he heard a voice on the officer's radio saying that the automobile might be stolen out of San Bruno and requesting that Officer Doran stand by. The officer told him to stand with his hands against the car. Defendant tried first to stall the officer and then pulled out his gun and covered him.

When he was first stopped, defendant had carefully placed his pistol under the thigh of his leg, so that he would have it ready for instant action if he was unable to talk his way out of his predicament. He said that he had not at that time intended to kill Officer Doran and merely wanted to get away, but that when the officer tried to draw his own gun, he shot him. He kept pulling the trigger of his gun until he heard it click empty, and he then picked up the officer's gun and drove away from the area as fast as he could.

He told his friend Bosson that after he had shot the officer he got out of his car and shot him again in the neck, because 'I had to be sure he was dead.'

Defendant drove to his home and began to listen to the radio to see how much the police knew about the killing, and the next day began a systematic disposal of any of the incriminating evidence that might be used against him. When he thought he had covered all of his traces, he left the state.

Defendant's counsel argues that defendant acted irrationally after the murder and that his panic and thoughtlessness are demonstrated by his clinging to the murder weapon with an almost morbid fascination. Actually his keeping of the murder weapon demonstrates just how calmly defendant was acting and thinking. He admitted on the witness stand that he kept the pistol because he was considering having the barrel rebored so that he could send it to the police later on to show that his pistol had not been the murder weapon and also because he thought he could use it to raise some escape money by pawning it.

Viewing the evidence logically, the murder pattern is quite clear. Defendant coldly dispassionately and mercilessly killed Officer Doran because the officer at that moment, through the hand of fate, stood in the way of his escape and freedom. His actions before, during and after the murder clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that he premeditated the murder of Officer Doran. (People v. Eggers, 30 Cal.2d 676, 686(6) et seq., 185 P.2d 1.)

The distinguishing factor between first and second degree murder is that in the former the killing must be 'wilful, deliberate, and premediated' (Pen.Code, § 189). This means the defendant must have weighed in his mind and considered the course of action he was taking, and after having considered the reasons for and against, chosen to kill his victim. (People v. Honeycutt, 29 Cal.2d 52, 61, 172 P.2d 698; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 183(19), 163 P.2d 8. Premeditation may be shown by circumstantial evidence (People v. Cole, 47 Cal.2d 99, 106(7), 301 P.2d 854, 56 A.L.R.2d 1435), and may evolve from a relatively short period of consideration by the defendant of what course of action he should follow (People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 900(15), 156 P.2d 7).

The evidence shows that defendant had hidden his pistol under his leg when the officer stopped him and that he had practiced 'quick-drawing' the gun on previous occasions. Finally, the prosecution proved the situation in which defendant found himself when stopped. He was on probation from several previous convictions and had committed numerous other crimes in the interim; and he knew that if these facts were uncovered, he faced a long prison term. He also knew that he was driving a stolen car with stolen plates and that this would cause his immediate arrest if it were discovered. This discovery became imminent when the officer requested a 'hot car' check on defendant's vehicle and received a reply that the vehicle...