People v. Schindler
Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
Docket Number | Cr. 36155 |
Citation | 170 Cal.Rptr. 461,114 Cal.App.3d 178 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Laura SCHINDLER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Paul J. Geragos, Los Angeles, and Jerome D. Savenick, Sherman Oaks, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael Nash and Richard D. Marino, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Laura Schindler appeals from the judgment of conviction of the second degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187) with use of a gun (Pen.Code, § 12022.5) of her husband, Louis Schindler.
On March 5, 1978, defendant (aged 51) fatally shot her husband who, 11 years before, had shot and killed his previous wife, June. 1 Though defendant did not remember firing the single shot, it was undisputed that she committed the homicide.
The defense introduced extensive evidence to show that defendant was suffering from diminished capacity and acted in self-defense. Numerous witnesses, including the decedent's daughter (defendant's step-daughter) testified that defendant was a passive, gentle, dependent, severely depressed woman who was afraid of her domineering, explosive, irrationally hostile husband. During the last two years of their seven-year marriage, she had suffered severe weight loss and depression, becoming increasingly withdrawn, nervous and frightened of him. He sometimes slept with a knife under his pillow, enjoyed frightening her, and boasted in her presence about killing June and getting away with it because of his wealth. Defendant indicated to others that she was afraid to leave him because he had killed June when June was in the process of divorcing him. She testified that on the night of March 5, she was sitting on a chair next to the bed when Louis got into bed. He was in a surly mood. He then turned towards her with "a maniacal look on his face," and said in a very quiet, very low voice: Her next memory was being in jail. 2
It was the opinion of Dr. Rose, a psychiatrist who testified for the defense, that at the time of the shooting, defendant was severely mentally incapacitated and was unable to form the intent to kill, premeditate, deliberate or harbor malice. She was in an extreme "state of panic," triggered by decedent's specific threat to kill her which she took very literally, was in mortal terror of her life, became totally irrational and lost control of her behavior.
In rebuttal, the prosecution called another psychiatrist, Dr. Markman. It was his opinion that defendant had an active physical fear of her husband and that the act of shooting him was inconsistent with her personality, but at the time she shot him, she was not legally insane, could form the intent to kill and could harbor malice.
On rebuttal, the People also attempted to counter the defense of diminished capacity by introducing evidence of a jail house in-custody interview conducted by Officer Osti a few hours after the homicide wherein defendant was advised of and exercised her Miranda rights. Over defense objection, the court ruled that such evidence was admissible to show "her state of mind." After relating his advisement of the Miranda rights, Osti then gave the following testimony with respect to defendant's responses and his opinion as an expert of her mental state:
The officer further testified that he overheard defendant ask her friend who had come to the police station to see if she could get Mr. Geragos for her defense attorney.
In argument to the jury, the prosecutor stressed the invocation of her Miranda rights, as follows:
The prosecutor further stressed her selection of that particular lawyer, Mr. Geragos:
Defense counsel Geragos immediately moved for a mistrial. The prosecutor claimed that it was already in the record through the People's rebuttal witness, Garfield, 3 that Geragos had been the prosecutor. Geragos pointed out that he had "denied it." The court denied the motion for mistrial, indicating that it agreed with the prosecutor that it was relevant impeachment, and suggesting that defense counsel could comment on it if he chose. In his argument, defense counsel did argue that he was not an issue in the case. 4
Then, in his final summation to the jury, the prosecutor again stressed defendant's selection of Geragos to show defendant's guilt, stating:
After deliberating about 22 hours, the jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. This appeal followed.
Defendant contends that: (1) her constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated by use of her responses asserting her Miranda rights to rebut her defense of diminished capacity; (2) her right to counsel was impaired by the use of her particular choice of counsel for impeachment in argument, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of second degree murder. The People controvert these contentions. 5
Defendant's constitutional rights to due process and against self-incrimination were violated by the admission in evidence (and use in argument) of her responses asserting her Miranda rights for the purpose of rebutting her diminished capacity defense. Further, exploitation of her choice of counsel for impeachment and rebuttal of her defense impaired her constitutional right to counsel and constituted prosecutorial misconduct. These errors were prejudicial. Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment. However, since the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, defendant can be retried for second degree murder.
The use of defendant's exercise of her Miranda rights to prove her guilt violated her rights to due process and against self-incrimination. The People claim that Officer Osti's testimony that she responded that she did not want to make a statement until she talked with an attorney, as well as his opinion that she understood her rights, was properly admitted to rebut her diminished capacity defense. We disagree.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 468, fn. 37, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the United States Supreme Court noted:
(Italics added.)
More recently, in Doyle v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Spencer
...and appellant may be retried. (People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 209, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91; People v. Schindler (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 178, 190, 170 Cal.Rptr. 461.) Although appellant initially was represented by a deputy public defender at the arraignment stage, at that point......
-
Richter v. State
...Wilkinson v. State, Ala.Crim.App., 361 So.2d 400 (1978); State v. Davis, 119 Ariz. 529, 582 P.2d 175 (1978); People v. Schindler, 114 Cal.App.3d 178, 170 Cal.Rptr. 461 (1980); People v. Ortega, 40 Colo.App. 449, 580 P.2d 813 (1978); State v. Zeko, 177 Conn. 545, 418 A.2d 917 (1979); Smith v......
-
People v. Coffman
...exercise of the right to counsel is also prohibited. (People v. Fabert (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 604, 610-611 ; People v. Schindler (1980) 114 Cal. App.3d 178, 188-189 Counsel for a codefendant, like the prosecutor, is bound by this principle and thus is precluded from commenting on the defenda......
-
People v. Crandell
...to counsel is also prohibited. (People v. Fabert (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 604, 610-611, 179 Cal.Rptr. 702; People v. Schindler (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 178, 188-189, 170 Cal.Rptr. 461.) Here the evidence of defendant's invocation of the right to counsel was received without objection and the rema......