People v. Sigal

• Decision Date: 28 June 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 3623
• Citation: 235 Cal.App.2d 449,45 Cal.Rptr. 481
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Barry Miles SIGAL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 481

45 Cal.Rptr. 481

235 Cal.App.2d 449

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Barry Miles SIGAL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3623.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

June 28, 1965.

Hearing Denied Aug. 25, 1965.

Allan B. O'Connor, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

REGAN, Justice.

For the second time Barry Miles Sigal was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree. ¹ He appeals from the judgment.

The victim of the murder, Mrs. Wilma McAfee, was the manager of an apartment house in which defendant resided. He was seen conversing with Mrs. McAfee at the entrance to her apartment about 5:30 p. m., January 11, 1962. About 9:30 p. m. another tenant had a telephone conversation with Mrs. McAfee.

Mrs. McAfee was not seen on January 12. Her daughter attempted to enter her mother's apartment about 6:30 p. m. but the door was locked. She secured a passkey hidden in a basement room and entered her mother's apartment. She discovered her mother's body covered with a bedspread in a bedroom. Mrs. McAfee had been strangled from behind. There were many bruises and abrasions on her body. The autopsy surgeon testified that death had occurred some 14 to 28 hours prior to 8 p. m., January 12, as the result of asphyxiation. There were no indications that entry into the apartment had been gained by means of force. There was no evidence of a struggle in the apartment. A master key which Mrs. McAfee kept on a long chain was missing, though the chain was found near her body. Her car keys were missing and her car could not be found in the area.

On January 12 Sigal's apartment was searched. A hall light was lit, dirty dishes were found in the sink and on the dining table, the bed was not made, and clothing was found in the closet. Shortly after 6 a. m. on January 15 Sigal was in possession of a car, later identified as Mrs. McAfee's, in Jacksonville, Illinois. He told the attendant of a service station that he was driving the car to Springfield, Illinois. The McAfee car was discovered in a parking lot in Springfield, Illinois, on January 20. The vehicle was covered with 14 inches of snow, which indicated that the automobile had been in the lot since the last snowfall some four or five days before. The doors, which could not be locked without a key, were locked. There was no discernible evidence that the automobile had been 'hot wired.' Sigal's fingerprints were found on the rearview mirror and on a box of No Doz tablets.

Sigal was arrested in Seattle, Washington, on February 19, 1962. A .45 automatic was found in his hotel room. The weapon was identified as one taken from an apartment in the building where Sigal and Mrs. McAfee resided. The owner discovered that the automatic was missing on January 13. He believed that the gun was taken some time between 3:45 p. m. and midnight on January 11. Sigal had knowledge that the owner possessed such a weapon.

Prior to the first trial Dr. Walter Rapaport, a psychiatrist, was appointed to inquire into Sigal's sanity at the time of trial. He had two conversations with Sigal. In the first conversation Sigal stated that he was in Mrs. McAfee's apartment between 7 and 8 p. m. watching television. Sigal stated the last he could remember was around 8 p. m. that evening. His next realization was that he was in Missouri in Mrs. McAfee's car. In the second conversation Sigal stated that he had never admitted taking the car or that he was in the car or that the car was Mrs. McAfee's.

Sigal did not testify nor was any evidence offered on his behalf.

In his argument the district attorney told the jury that the accused's failure to take the stand and explain or deny the evidence against him permitted the jurors, during their deliberations, to draw inferences more unfavorable to the accused.

The court instructed the jury: 'It is a constitutional right of a defendant in a criminal trial that he may not be compelled to testify. Thus, whether or not he does testify rests entirely in his own decision. As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge, if he does not testify, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable. In this connection, however, it should be noted that if a defendant does not have the knowledge that he would need to deny or to explain any certain evidence against him, it would be unreasonable to draw an inference unfavorable to him because of his failure to deny or explain such evidence. The failure of a defendant to deny or explain evidence against him does not create a presumption of guilt or by itself warrant inferenct of guilt, nor does it relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving every essential element of the crime and the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

'In deciding whether or not to testify, the defendant may choose to rely on the state of the evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the People to prove every essential element of the charge against him, and no lack of testimony on defendant's part will supply a failure of proof by the People so as to support by itself a finding against him on any such essential element.'

Appellant contends that it was improper to receive evidence of the theft of the .45 automatic. "It is settled in this state * * * that except when it shows merely criminal disposition [citations], evidence that is relevant is not excluded because it reveals the commission of an offense other than that charged. 'The general tests of the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case are: * * * does it tend logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference, to establish any fact material for the people * * *? If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not."' (People v. Lopez, 60 Cal.2d 223, 249, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 439, 384 P.2d 16, 31.)

The evidence was relevant because it permitted an inference that Sigal entered the apartment with a master key before midnight the night of the murder. It also was relevant because it tended to pinpoint the time of Sigal's flight which is a factor which may be considered with the other evidence tending to connect an accused with the commission of the crime. (People v. Moore, 211 Cal.App.2d 585, 27 Cal.Rptr. 526.) Thus there was no error in its admission.

Appellant also contends that it was improper to receive the testimony of Dr. Rapaport, relating the defendant's statement, which placed him in Mrs. McAfee's apartment at 8 p. m. the night of the murder. Dr. Rapaport was appointed under the provisions of Penal Code section 1368 to inquire into Sigal's sanity prior to the first trial.

If the appointment had been made under the provisions of section 1027 of the Penal Code the testimony would have been properly received. The applicable rule of law is stated in People v. Ditson, 57 Cal.2d 415, at page 448, 20 Cal.Rptr. 165, at page 183, 369 P.2d 714, at page 732: 'The argument is untenable. 'Merely because the statute [Pen.Code, § 1027] provides that it is the affirmative duty of an alienist to testify whenever summoned in a sanity proceeding does not mean or even imply that he is prohibited from testifying in other proceedings where information that he may have is relevant and material.' People v. Combes (1961) 56 Cal.2d 135, 149, 14 Cal.Rptr. 4, 363 P.2d 4. Here each of the alienists had questioned Cisneros as to his memory of the events of the night of the crime, such information being necessary to a proper psychiatric determination of whether he had suffered an epileptic seizure on that night preventing him from having the required specific intent to commit first degree murder. Their testimony in this connection was both relevant and material, and hence was admissible on the guilt phase of the trail (see People v. Wells (1949) 33 Cal.2d 330, 351 [14b], 202 P.2d 53) whether as part of the People's case in chief (Dr. Smith) or to rebut conflicting medical testimony introduced by the defense (Drs. Dwankowsi and Thompson). Cisneros was not compelled to submit to the psychiatric examination; he did so voluntarily. His contention that this resulted in a violation of his privilege against self-incrimination is without merit, and has recently been rejected by this court (People v. Combes (1961) supra, 56 Cal.2d 135, 149-150, 14 Cal.Rptr. 4, 363 P.2d 4; accord; cases collected in Note, 32 A.L.R.2d 434, 444-448). There is, of course, no doctor-patient privilege in criminal cases (Code Civ.Proc. § 1881, subd. 4), although at the trial Cisneros appeared to object to the alienists' testimony on that ground as well.'

No case that we have found discusses the propriety of receiving the testimony of an alienist appointed under the provisions of Penal Code section 1368 but it would seem that the rules enunciated under the provisions of section 1027 would be controlling. There is no logical reason for admitting such testimony if the psychiatrist is appointed under section 1027 and excluding it if he is appointed under section 1368. If the testimony is admissible in one case, it is in the other. Only other exclusionary rules would prevent reception. On the record presented here the court properly permitted Dr. Rapaport's testimony.

Appellant urges, however, that Dr. Rapaport's testimony failed to meet the foundational requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2047. When Dr. Rapaport interviewed appellant, he took notes of his conversations. The notes paraphrased ap...