People v. Rupp
| Decision Date | 14 August 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5416 |
| Citation | 41 Cal.2d 371,260 P.2d 1 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RUPP. |
N. D. Meyer, Public Defender, Santa Ana, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., James L. Davis, Dist. Atty. (Orange) and James P. Devine, Asst. Dist. Atty., Santa Ana, for respondent.
A jury found William Rupp guilty of murder in the first degree, without recommendation, and concluded that he was sane at the time the crime was committed. His motion for a new trial was denied and the statutory appeal, Penal Code, section 1239 (b), is from the judgment which imposes the death penalty.
Most of the evidence concerning the commission of the crime is without conflict. For about six months prior to August 8, 1952, the date Ruby Ann Payne was killed, Rupp was employed by William Dyer as an assistant bee keeper and general helper. On the morning of the homicide, Rupp was working in the yard near the Dyer home. Shortly after noon, Dyer and his wife went away, leaving their three young children in the care of Ruby Ann, a fifteen-year-old girl who lived nearby.
Kenneth Dyer, aged eight, testified that shortly after the parents had gone, Rupp knocked at the rear door of the house and asked him if his father was home. When told that Dyer was away, Rupp departed. A few minutes later, he returned and explained to Kenneth that he had a check for the boy's father. Kenneth suggested that Rupp give the check to the baby sitter, but Rupp refused. Instead, he entered the house, placed the paper upon a desk in the living room, and left.
A short time later, Kenneth heard someone open the rear door. In the hall outside the playroom in which Ruby Ann and the children were watching a television program, Kenneth encountered Rupp holding a .22 caliber rifle. They discussed the gun for a few moments. The boy then left and returned with a bullet, which he gave to Rupp.
At the request of Rupp, the boy brought a hammer to him. Rupp then sent him upon another errand, this time to a warehouse located some distance from the house, to obtain a five gallon can.
As he was returning from the warehouse, Kenneth heard the sound of a shot. Hurrying to the house he discovered Rupp with Ruby Ann in the hall outside the bedroom door. The girl was lying upon the floor. Rupp was upon one knee beside her, 'pulling at her jeans'. When Kenneth asked what had happened, Rupp jumped up but said nothing. After the boy repeated his question, Rupp stood silently for a moment and then ran out the rear door. A few seconds later, Kenneth saw Rupp's automobile being driven away.
A neighbor called a physician who arrived about one-half hour later. The girl's clothing was disarranged and there had been a great amount of bleeding. He estimated that death had occurred several minutes before his arrival.
According to the autopsy surgeon's report, the girl was shot twice. One bullet entered the back, passed through the lungs and emerged from the chest. A second bullet penetrated the right side of the face and lodged in the neck. In addition, a wound which could have been caused by a blow from a hammer was found on the top of the head. Death resulted from asphyxiation, caused by blood entering the trachea and bronchea, combined with shock and loss of blood. An examination of the genital system revealed a bruise or abrasion on the hymen, resulting from the insertion of some object into the vagina. No traces of seminal fluid were found about the body, although stains of that substance appeared upon Rupp's underclothing.
One bullet was removed from the body and another was found nearby. Searchers discovered Rupp's automobile in a lemon grove about five or six miles from the Dyer ranch. In the car they found a .22 caliber rifle and several hundred rounds of ammunition. A ballistics test indicated that the lethal bullets came from that gun.
Rupp was arrested late in the evening of the fourth day after the killing. He was taken to the city jail and interrogated by police officers. He readily admitted killing the girl and gave a detailed confession to both arresting officers, each of whom testified as to its contents. The next morning, he again confessed. This confession was recorded by a stenographer and a transcription of it read to the jury. A third confession, made two days later, also was read to the jury. In addition, police officials, present when the confessions were given, testified as to their substance. All of this evidence was admitted over the objection of counsel for Rupp.
Substantially, the same facts are stated in each confession. Rupp told the officers he had seen Ruby Ann a few times prior to the day of the homicide but never had occasion to speak to her. While he was working, in the yard, he saw the girl go into the house. Referring to the time immediately after the Dyers had left, he said 'To this girl?' he was asked. 'No', he replied, 'just anyone in particular; just whenever a chance come up, but then it just seemed like a chance there, and I jumped real fast to it without stopping to plan or think anything out.'
Rupp stated that he then got his gun from his car, removed his shoes, and went into the house. Asked why he took the gun with him, he replied 'I was going to take it in to try to scare her.' The questioning then continued as follows:
So that the boy would leave, the statement continued, Rupp sent him to the warehouse for an empty can. The other children also left, and he was alone with the girl, who was sitting on a sofa watching the television program. In reply to a question, he told the officers he then hit the girl on the top of the head with the hammer.
Further interrogation brought out these details:
'
* * *
Rupp stated that thereupon, he 'ripped her clothes off.' He denied that thereafter he attempted to rape her; instead, 'just the I left; I decided to get up and get out of there.' However, he admitted fondling the body and inserting his finger into the genital organs. He further stated that the reason that he tore the blouse and Levis partly from the girl's body was to see her naked form. He admitted that if the girl had submitted to him he would not have used force.
After he left the Dyer ranch, Rupp drove to the entrance of a canyon about five or six miles away. There he stopped at a grocery store and purchased some crackers and soda pop. He remained in the canyon for three days, sleeping in his automobile. Questioned concerning his reason for remaining in the vicinity, he answered that he believed his car would be recognized. On the fourth day, he abandoned his car and hid in a lemon grove. That evening, he walked into a nearby town to get something to eat and to give himself up.
Rupp does not challenge the sufficiency of this evidence to support the judgment of conviction. He contends that the trial court erred in rulings upon the admission of evidence and instructions to the jury. Also, he argues, it was error to try the issue of insanity before the same jury which heard the evidence concerning the commission of the crime. Finally, he claims prejudice from remarks of the trial judge.
It is contended that testimony concerning Rupp's admissions or confessions, insofar as they related to an attempt to commit rape, should not have been received because the corpus delicti of that crime had not been established. In this connection, it is argued that the corpus delicti must have been proven 'to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt'.
However, as stated in People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 234 P.2d 1: 37 Cal.2d at pages 624-625, 234 P.2d at page 7.
In the present case, apart from Rupp's admission, there was evidence of the use of force against the girl, a disarrangement of the clothing and a disturbance of the genital organs. Also, the record includes ample testimony placing Rupp at the scene of the crime. From these facts an attempt to commit rape could be inferred.
No evidence was offered by Rupp which would tend to disprove the commission of the acts stated by him in his confessions. Instead, by data in regard to his personal medical history, he sought to establish the existence of a mental condition which would excuse his acts or justify conviction of a lesser crime than murder in the first degree. Objections to such evidence were sustained.
Several formal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ghent
...on the offense of assault with intent to rape Mrs. Bert would not have assisted defendant, for as we stated in People v. Rupp (1953) 41 Cal.2d 371, 382, 260 P.2d 1, "[A]n assault with intent to commit rape is merely an aggravated form of an attempted rape, the latter differing from the form......
-
People v. Cooley
...P.2d page 293; People v. Wells, 10 Cal.2d 610, 617, 624, 76 P.2d 493; People v. Cook, 15 Cal.2d 507, 514, 102 P.2d 752; People v. Rupp, 41 Cal.2d 371, 382, 260 P.2d 1.) Appellant asserts that his conduct was excusable as a result of provocation. In People v. Taylor, 197 Cal.App.2d 372, 380-......
-
People v. Mabry
...the first degree. (People v. Turville, 51 Cal.2d 620, 633, 335 P.2d 678; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 581, 305 P.2d 1; People v. Rupp. 41 Cal.2d 371, 382, 260 P.2d 1; People v. Sanford, 33 Cal.2d 590, 595, 203 P.2d 534; People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502, 516, 66 P.2d 631.) The instant case......
-
People v. Corona
...court has wide discretion to determine whether the issue of legal sanity be adjudicated by the same or a different jury (People v. Rupp (1953) 41 Cal.2d 371, 260 P.2d 1; People v. French (1939) 12 Cal.2d 720, 87 P.2d 1014; People v. Foster (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 35, 39 P.2d 271). The implicit ......