People v. Schiers

• Decision Date: 05 August 1971
• Docket Number: Cr. 6063
• Citation: 19 Cal.App.3d 102,96 Cal.Rptr. 330
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wallace Leroy SCHIERS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 330

96 Cal.Rptr. 330

19 Cal.App.3d 102

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wallace Leroy SCHIERS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6063.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Aug. 5, 1971.

Hearing Denied Sept. 30, 1971.

Paul M. Posner, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

SCHWEITZER, Associate Justice.

In 1957 defendant was convicted of the second degree murder of his wife. (Pen.Code, § 187.) This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Schiers (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 364, 324 P.2d 981, hear. denied.)

Over the years defendant has repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought relief in both the state and federal courts. In 1965 he was paroled. On September 21, 1970 defendant filed an 'Application for Recall of Remittitur or, in the Alternative, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.' Pursuant thereto, on January 12, 1971 this court vacated the judgment, recalled the remittitur, and reinstated the appeal for the reason that at the time of defendant's 1958 appeal, he was an indigent person, appeared in propria persona, and had not been furnished counsel. (See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.) We therefore consider this as an original appeal from the judgment entered August 7, 1957.

Facts

Although there is a factual summary in the prior opinion of this court (People v. Schiers, Supra, 160 Cal.App.2d at pp. 367--371, 324 P.2d 981), the summary therein contained is insufficient to meet the many contentions now raised. Of necessity we therefore restate the facts.

Defendant was employed as an electronic assembly supervisor at the Bendix aviation plant in the San Fernando Valley. His wife was a member of a local women's club. On the morning of February 12, 1957 the victim had an appointment to meet two ladies at the women's club. Alarmed by her failure to keep the appointment, they went to the victim's residence, rang the bell and knocked on the door, but no one answered. One of the ladies entered the house through an unlocked rear door. Upon opening the door to the victim's bedroom, the lady discovered the nude body of the victim on the floor; she had been brutally beaten. Cause of death was subsequently determined as multiple fractures of the skull, with intracranial hemorrhage and cerebral contusions. The murder weapon was never found, although the victim's mother testified that she noticed about a week later that two small star-shaped glass candlestick holders and a heavy ornamental champagne bottle were missing from the house.

An investigation by Los Angeles police officers disclosed that there were no signs of a struggle anywhere inside the house; that none of the outside doors or windows had been forced; that the only fingerprints in the victim's bedroom were her own; that there were no unidentifiable fingerprints elsewhere in the house; that the victim's purse, containing a check and some cash, was in the kitchen; and that the victim's wrist watch was lying on a dresser in her bedroom.

Leland V. Jones, a police lieutenant assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division, arrived at the scene at 1:30 p.m. and observed that the bed and walls in the victim's room were covered with blood; that there were bloodstains on the ceiling; and that there was a blood spattered man's undershirt and a pair of men's shorts on the floor beside the bed. As an expert on the subject of forensic chemistry, he testified that in his opinion, based on the pattern of the stains on the undershirt, it had been lying in the same position when the victim's blood spurted around the room. He conducted benzidine tests in various rooms of the house, describing the test generally as follows: If a benzidine base, called a latent color, is mixed with an oxidase, the oxidase will carry oxygen to the latent color and the solution will turn blue; blood is an exceptionally good oxidase and will react to benzidine even when the solution is diluted to the extent of one part blood to three hundred thousand parts of water; the higher the proportion of blood, the more immediate and vivid will be the blue color reaction. In defendant's bathroom the officer tested the wash basin and the water in the commode; he obtained an immediate vivid blue reaction. He also noted a spot of diluted blood just above the faucets of the wash basin. There was no evidence of blood in the shower stall.

Meanwhile, defendant returned home from work, having been informed by telephone of his wife's death. It was suggested that he submit to a benzidine test in order to eliminate him as a suspect; he consented. Defendant stepped into his wife's bathroom and removed his shirt. Officer Jones then dipped a cotton swab fastened to a short stick into the benzidine reagent and as he applied it to one of defendant's hands, it turned blue immediately. Alternately changing swabs, additional applications were made to defendant's palms, the front of his arms, and his chest. The officer testified: 'Any place I touched the front of his body, I got an immediate blue line. * * * At that time Mr. Schiers pounded his hands and said, 'My God, this puts me in an awful position. '' Defendant was taken into the kitchen and asked to take off his trousers, which he did. Officer Jones testified: 'At that time his hands were shaking and he was quite nervous * * * I ran * * * tests on his legs and I again got a very positive action on the front, all over the front of the body, on down to the knees, and from the knees down, I received no reaction whatever.' The witness also made benzidine tests in the victim's bathroom and in other parts of the house, but found no additional traces of blood.

Officer Jones testified that bleaches, lead salts, nitrates and certain vegetable substances also react in a positive manner to the benzidine test. Because of this fact he tested washing powder and various soaps in the house to determine if there was a substance in them which might give a false reaction; the results were negative.

Ray Pinker, chief forensic chemist, Los Angeles Police Department, testified that on February 14 and 15 he repeated the benzidine tests of the premises. On these occasions he used a solution containing hydrogen peroxide so as to eliminate the possibility of false color reactions arising from bleaches. The chemist found no traces of blood in the victim's bathroom; however, he procured the same reactions in defendant's bathroom that had been obtained by Officer Jones. He also tested the soaps and detergents used in the household and found none which produced a color reaction.

There was conflicting evidence as to the time of death. Basing his opinion largely upon the rate of cooling of the victim's liver and the amount of alcohol in her blood, Dr. Frederick Newbarr, chief autopsy surgeon of the coroner's office, testified that the victim died some time between 10:30 p.m. on February 11 and 6:15 the following morning; he fixed the approximate time of her death at 2:00 a.m. Dr. Kenneth Johnson, a chemist and chemical engineer, expressed the opinion that the time of death was 7:00 a.m. He was not a doctor of medicine and admitted that he had never performed any experiments on the liver cooling rates of deceased persons.

Officer Louis Belle, one of the investigating officers, testified that he had a conversation with defendant on February 13; that defendant stated he spent the evening of February 11 with his wife; that they ordinarily slept in separate bedrooms; that he retired to her bedroom around 1:00 a.m.; that he returned to his own bedroom an hour later, read a little and went to sleep; that he heard nothing unusual during the night; that he arose at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., showered and shaved in his bathroom and left for work around 6:30 a.m.; that with respect to the benzidine test, defendant stated that he had not cut himself and could not understand why the test indicated the presence of blood on various parts of his body.

In defense, defendant denied killing his wife and testified that he spent the evening at home with her; that after dinner, he played solitaire and worked on income taxes while his wife watched television; that during the evening each of them drank some Scotch and beer; that they retired to his wife's bedroom at 1:00 a.m. and had sexual intercourse; that he left his undergarments on the floor; that he retired to his own bedroom an hour or so later, did not see his wife thereafter, and heard no noise during the night; that he arose at 5:00 a.m., took a shower, shaved and left for work at 5:30 a.m., and that the candlestick holders had been missing from his wife's bedroom for several months before her death; that he had thrown away the champagne bottle while cleaning out the kitchen a few days after the murder; that Officer Jones in making the benzidine test had only 'made cross-marks up and down my arms, and made, I think, three or four marks on the right and left sides of my chest'; and that he could not recall having come in contact with any of the substances mentioned by the People's experts which might have caused a positive reaction to the benzidine test.

On cross-examination, defendant admitted that he and his wife had separated briefly in 1955 because of his excessive drinking and gambling; that in December 1956 he obtained a $2,450 loan to construct a rumpus room and patio; that none of the loan proceeds were spent for that purpose; that he gave some of the money to his wife, sent some to a former wife, and spent the rest gambling and on other personal pleasures.

Four of defendant's fellow employees testified that defendant arrived at work on February 12 at his usual time, around 7:00 a.m., appeared to be calm, and performed his duties in a usual manner. Six persons testified that defendant's...