People v. Robles

Decision Date20 March 1970
Docket NumberCr. 12854
Citation2 Cal.3d 205,85 Cal.Rptr. 166,466 P.2d 710
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 466 P.2d 710 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leo Estrada ROBLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert N. Beechinor, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci and Michael Buzzell, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

PETERS, Justice.

Leo Estrada Robles was convicted after a jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner (Pen.Code, § 4500), and first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187). The jury in a separate trial fixed the penalty for both crimes at death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

On November 6, 1967, Forrest Willard Smith, a San Quentin inmate, was murdered; he had been struck on the head and ear, and his throat was cut from ear to ear. Defendant Robles was charged by indictment with assault with a deadly weapon while serving a life term, and first degree murder. (Pen.Code, §§ 4500, 187.) Two prior convictions were alleged, assault with intent to commit murder, and murder.

Robles pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and admitted the prior convictions. The court appointed three psychiatrists to determine whether Robles was sane when he committed the charged offenses and whether he was presently sane. After the psychiatrists filed reports that Robles was at both times sane, the court declared a doubt as to Robles' sanity (Pen.Code, § 1368), and the question of Robles' sanity was tried to a jury, which found that Robles was able to understand the nature of the charges against him and to cooperate with his attorney in his defense.

The court appointed counsel in place of the public defender. After a trial by jury, on July 25, 1968. Robles was found guilty as charged on both counts. The court granted Robles' motion to withdraw his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and to discharge his attorneys and proceed in propria persona during the penalty phase. The court ordered that Robles' attorneys remain in court to serve as advisers. On August 8, 1968, the jury fixed the penalty for both offenses at death.

Defendant Robles on November 6, 1967, was housed in the psychiatric ward of the San Quentin prison hospital. About 9:30 that morning, Robles learned through the prison grapevine that he was going to be returned to the adjustment center. Robles was upset because he believed he had worked hard while in the psychiatric ward and hoped to be made a lead man, supervising other prisoner-attendants in the ward. That morning, another inmate, one Cruz, had a conversation with Robles, who stated that Robles was pretty upset and that he planned to put his hand through some windows. During another conversation in the afternoon, Robles took some pills; he then fell asleep, and Cruz and other inmates took Robles to his cell.

Robles arrived on a gurney at the San Quentin adjustment center about 3:40 that afternoon. Robles was conscious; he got off the gurney himself, staggered, then straightened up and walked by himself to the cells where he conversed with various inmates for about 15 minutes. Robles asked one of his acquaintances to have a T-shirt ready, because he intended to break some windows; Robles later stated that he had in mind that if he acted violent and injured himself, he might be returned to the psychiatric ward.

Robles then ran his hand through a window, and a correctional officer took him to the hospital clinic for medical treatment. Robles was returned to the psychiatric ward about 4 p.m. A prisoner-attendant observed that Robles had deep cuts on his right hand and that there was blood on his person. Robles appeared lucid in various conversations with the attendant; during the conversations, Robles stated: 'I am going to kill some of those son-of-a-bitches over in A.C. (adjustment center).'

From 4 p.m., Robles roamed freely about the entire ward. He spoke to his acquaintances in the ward and tried to convince them to kill the attendants in the psychiatric ward, but the other inmates refused. Later in the evening, after 10 o'clock lockup, Robles was allowed to remain out of his cell to watch television. He was observed entering the cell of another inmate, Forrest Willard Smith. About 10:30, an inmate attendant looked into Smith's cell, saw a puddle of blood, ran out and hollered for another attendant. Robles was standing outside Smith's cell. He told the attendant that he 'did it,' and went into Smith's cell, emerging with 'some objects' in a 'white cloth.'

A correctional officer, Perkins, arrived at the ward at about this time. Robles approached him and said, 'I did something wrong; don't get pissed at me.' Perkins asked him what he had done, and Robles pointed to Smith's room and said, 'I killed him. I hit him over the head with something. I cut his throat, and I hope he is dead.' Perkins looked into Smith's cell; Smith was lying on his back in bed; his throat had been cut from ear to ear, and his right ear was partially severed. Smith was still alive but died shortly thereafter.

A search of Smith's cell revealed a bloody toothbrush with a razor blade imbedded in it. Some weights wrapped in a T-shirt were found outside Smith's cell.

Robles was searched by two officers. He had to be forcibly restrained, shouted obscenities, and said, 'I killed the son-of-a-bitch and I hope he dies.' Robles' hands and clothes were bloody. He was taken by several correctional officers to the Adjustment Center. As Robles and the officers passed the clinic, where Smith's body was, Robles said several times 'I hope you die, you son-of-a-bitch,' and described Smith as a 'no-good snitch mother-fucker, * * *'

The next day about 2:30 p.m., Robles, having been read his Miranda rights and having signed a card waiving those rights, confessed to a prison investigator, Sergeant Hankins. The substance of his confession was that he had been led to believe he would be made an attendant in the psychiatric ward, that he wanted to kill everyone in the psychiatric ward but the other inmates refused to cooperate, that he was going to kill several people, and killed Smith first because he did not like the way he looked, that he obtained two 10-pound weights and a heavy ashtray, which he wrapped in a T-shirt, and that he entered Smith's cell, found Smith asleep, hit him over the head twice with the weights, took a razor blade, and cut Smith's throat, slashing six or seven times to get through to the jugular vein.

On November 15, Robles confessed to the Marin County District Attorney, after being warned of his Miranda rights. This confession differed from the confession to Sergeant Hankins in that Robles claimed he planned to kill Smith at 9 a.m. because he had given Smith two packs of cigarettes hoping that Smith would order drugs for Robles, but Smith refused to order any drugs. Robles stated he had inserted razor blades in three toothbrushes that morning and hid them. He claimed he had taken four seconal pills between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., but that the medication was not affecting him at the time of the assault.

Robles also testified at his trial that he intended to and did kill Smith, and that he was aware of the consequences.

In addition to the testimony above, a pathologist, Dr. Hirabayashi, testified to the nature of Smith's wounds and the cause of his death, which he attributed to Smith's juglar vein being cut. He also testified that the wounds were consistent with the use of a razor blade and weights knotted in a T-shirt.

The sole defense was that Robles' capacity to premeditate and deliberate, and to bear malice aforethought, was diminished because of organic and phusiological disturbances, in combination with the ingestion of drugs the day of the killing.

All the psychiatrists who testified agreed that Robles was not normal. The two prosecution psychiatrists, who examined Robles in March 1968, characterized Robles as a sociopathic or antisocial personality, but testified that Robles was conscious and aware that the killing was unlawful, that he could and did premeditate and deliberate the killing of Smith, and that if Robles had taken drugs, the drugs did not affect his mental capacity.

The defense pyschiatrists were not in total agreement. Dr. Bewley, who as staff psychiatrist at San Quentin knew Robles intermittently from October 1966 to November 1967, characterized Robles as suffering from a schizophrenic reaction with marked paranoid elements. He testified that Robles' capacity was diminished, that Robles was not aware that it was against the law to kill, but that Robles had sufficient capacity to premeditate and deliberate the various events involved in the killing.

Dr. Weight, who observed Robles about 3:30 p.m. of the day of the killing, testified that Robles was then suffering from a drug reaction and characterized his condition as 'paranoid psychosis.' Although Dr. Wright testified on direct examination that Robles could not understand the law in relation to his actions, on cross-examination, he testified that he had the capacity to know that the law prohibited taking another person's life.

Dr. Peterson, who examined Robles in March 1966, characterized Robles as suffering from acute schizophrenia of a paranoid type, but gave no testimony concerning Robles' mental capacity the day of the crime; on cross-examination, he testified that Robles' ability to premeditate was less than the average person.

Dr. Cary, who as staff psychiatrist at San Quentin saw Robles 'off and on' for about a year before the crime, characterized Robles as suffering from schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type. He testified that on the day of the crime, Robles' ability to premeditate or deliberate was disminished, but on cross-examination he testified that Robles had the ability to premeditate and deliberate his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
252 cases
  • People v. Lucky
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 d1 Maio d1 1988
    ...that a defendant who demands to take the stand, contrary to the advice of counsel, has the right to do so. ( Robles, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 215, 85 Cal.Rptr. 166, 466 P.2d 710.) However, we have never held that such a situation requires that defendant be permitted new counsel, or that such a......
  • People v. Mickel
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 19 d1 Dezembro d1 2016
    ...his or her own behalf. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1332, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 ; People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215, 85 Cal.Rptr. 166, 466 P.2d 710.) These constitutional due process guarantees include the right to present witnesses and evidence in support ......
  • People v. Murphy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 d1 Novembro d1 1972
    ...also tended to clarify the testimony of the autopsy surgeon regarding the precise location of the wounds (People v. Robles, supra, 2 Cal.3d 205, 214, 85 Cal.Rptr. 166, 466 P.2d 710; People v. Brawley, supra, 1 Cal.3d 277, 295, 82 Cal.Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361; People v. Gardner (1969) 71 Cal.......
  • People v. Sirhan
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 d5 Junho d5 1972
    ...for an evidentiary hearing and gave no indication of the nature of the evidence he intended to introduce. (People v. Robles, 2 Cal.3d 205, 219, 85 Cal.Rptr. 166, 466 P.2d 710; People v. Brawley, 1 Cal.3d 277, 298, 82 Cal.Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361 (cert. den. 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 462, 27 L.E......
  • 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