People v. Sigal

Decision Date30 October 1963
Docket NumberCr. 3426
Citation221 Cal.App.2d 684,34 Cal.Rptr. 767
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Barry Miles SIGAL, Defendant are Appellant.

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

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Doris Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and R. M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, Justice.

Appeal from conviction of second degree murder. Once more an appellate court is requested to weigh admissibility of a confession to an unwitnessed murder against claims of police coercion used in producing the confession. Evidentiary use of an involuntary confession is a denial of due process of law, violating both federal and state constitutions and requiring reversal of the conviction, even in the presence of independent corroborating evidence of guilt. (Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922; Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 583-584, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037; People v. Parham, 60 A.C. 333, 340, 33 Cal.Rptr. 497, 384 P.2d 1001; People v. Berve, 51 Cal.2d 286, 290, 332 P.2d 97.) A frequently stated test is whether the behavior of the state's law enforcement officials was such as to overbear the defendant's will to resist and bring about a confession not freely self-determined. (Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760; People v. Lopez, 60 A.C. 171, 196, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16.) Coercion can be mental as well as physical. (Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242.)

Evidence of the circumstances surrounding the confession in this case is not in conflict. It is our obligation to examine the uncontradicted facts in order to determine independently whether the confession was voluntary. (Spano v. People of State of New York, 360 U.S. 315, 316, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265; People v. Trout, 54 Cal.2d 576, 583, 6 Cal.Rptr. 759, 354 P.2d 231, 80 A.L.R.2d 1418.) We turn to the facts:

Mrs. Wilma McAfee, an elderly widow, was the manager of an apartment house in the central portion of Sacramento. At approximately 9 p. m. on January 11, 1962, Mrs. McAfee had a telephone conversation with one of the other tenants. On that same evening an automatic pistol was stolen from one of the apartments. Entry had not been procured by force.

No one had contact with Mrs. McAfee during the next day. Between 6:30 and 6:45 in the evening Mrs. McAfee's daughter attempted to enter her mother's apartment but the door was locked. She secured a pass key hidden in a basement room and gained entrance. In her mother's bedroom she discovered her mother's body covered with a bedspread. A neckerchief with a double knot in the back was tied tightly around her neck. Mrs. McAfee had been garroted from behind and had died as the result of asphyxiation. A medical estimate placed the time of death between 8 p. m. and midnight the previous evening. Numerous abrasions and contusions had been inflicted upon her just before her death. Normally Mrs. McAfee kept the master key to the apartments on a long chain which was pinned with a safety pin to her belt. When her body was found the chain and the key were gone. There were no signs that her apartment had been forcibly entered. There was no evidence of sexual assault. Thirty dollars in cash and some valuable jewelry were found in the apartment. The apartment had not been ransacked. Mrs. McAfee's automobile was missing from the garage below the apartment and the car keys, normally kept in her apartment, were missing.

Defendant Barry Sigal was a tenant in the same apartment house. He was approximately 22 years of age, a large man weighing about 250 pounds. During the course of the January 12 evening on which Mrs. McAfee's body was discovered, Sacramento police searched his apartment. A hall light in the apartment was burning. In the sink and on the table were some dishes with remains of food. The bed was unmade. There were clothes and shoes in the closet.

Early in the morning of January 15 defendant Sigal drove Mrs. McAfee's automobile into a gas station in Jacksonville, Illinois, where he sold a set of tire chains to the station operator. He told the operator that he was delivering a friend's car to him in Springfield, Illinois. On January 20 the same automobile, a Dodge, was discovered abandoned in a parking lot in Springfield. The ignition was locked. In order to lock a Dodge automobile its key must be used. The car had not been 'hot wired' to permit its use without a key. The car had 14 inches of snow on it. There had been no snow in the area since the 14th or 15th or January. Although the car had been wiped clean, defendant's fingerprints were found on a box of pills in the car and on the rear view mirror.

A complaint had been filed in the Sacramento Municipal Court on January 15 charging Sigal with Mrs. McAfee's murder. As the result of this complaint a fugitive warrant was issued. Sigal was arrested in Seattle, Washington, during the morning of February 19. In his possession was the automatic pistol which had been stolen from the apartment house in Sacramento. Also in his possession were oil company credit cards in the name of M. G. Smith, which had been used to purchase gasoline for Mrs. McAfee's car at various points east of California.

After his arrest he was booked into the Seattle city jail and interrogated by an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The agent informed him that a murder charge had been filed against him, that he was not required to make any statement, that any statement he made would be used against him in court, that he had a right to call an attorney before making any statement. Sigal asked the F.B.I. agent to get him an attorney immediately. The agent replied that he could not do so, that such a matter was in the hands of the Washington authorities, that there was no public defender in Washington and that an attorney would be appointed when defendant was brought before a magistrate. Actually, Sigal was not brought before a magistrate in Seattle until February 28, nine days after his arrest.

On February 20, the day following Sigal's arrest, Robert Puglia, a deputy district attorney of Sacramento County, arrived in Seattle. He was accompanied by Officer Soski of the Sacramento Police Department. Puglia and Soski interrogated Sigal in the Seattle city jail for slightly over two hours on the afternoon of February 20 and again for somewhat over three hours starting at 9 o'clock that evening. The interviews were recorded on tape without Sigal's knowledge. During the course of the February 20 discussions Sigal told his questioners that he knew Mrs. McAfee and that he had been in her apartment on the night of January 11, which was the night of the murder. He said that he had been in her apartment watching television for about an hour commencing at 8 o'clock. He then left the apartment and took a city bus to the vicinity of a freeway, where he began hitchhiking south to Los Angeles. He said that he had remained in Los Angeles for several days and from there hitchhiked to Texas and Florida. He admitted that he had borrowed her master key to the apartment house and that he knew it was kept on a chain pinned to her dress. He denied having been in Illinois in January; denied taking Mrs. McAfee's car; denied ever having driven the car and denied knowing who committed the crime.

The next day, February 21, Sigal underwent a polygraphic examination at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He was interrogated by Puglia and Soski from 5:30 p. m. to 8 p. m. and from 9 to 10 p. m. Puglia repeatedly requested Sigal's cooperation and urged him to tell the truth. Shortly after commencement of the February 21 interrogation he reminded Sigal that he was implicated in the use of Mrs. McAfee's car, that his hitchhiking story the previous day could be 'shot full of holes.' Sigal inquired as to his position if a hypothetical third person had been involved, whom he knew only by his first name and who could not be found. He asked whether one person could be implicated in a murder committed by another simply by being connected with the use of the automobile. Puglia said that wasn't necessarily true, that 'You have to have intent.' Sigal asked whether Puglia believed him to be the one who killed Mrs. McAfee. Puglia said that he did.

At that point Sigal commenced to relate what later came to be called the 'George story.' He had met a man named George in a bar. Later he met George in a park. George said that he intended to rob Mrs. McAfee and wanted Sigal's assistance. He threatened Sigal and Sigal's family with harm and backed up the threat by showing a gun. He wanted Sigal to help him gain admission into the apartment building. He, George, would take the money from Mrs. McAfee and then tie her up and leave her in her car. At first Sigal objected, then agreed to participate in George's scheme. George and Sigal had a later meeting for further discussion of their plans. On the designated evening, after making sure that Mrs. McAfee was at home, Sigal let George into the back door of the apartment house. Sigal pointed out Mrs. McAfee's apartment. George walked to Mrs. McAfee's door and knocked on it. Sigal went to his own apartment and secured his clothing, after which he waited for George in Mrs. McAfee's car in the garage. Within half an hour George came to the car, gave Sigal the keys and ordered him to drive away. They left Sacramento at approximately 9:20 p. m. Sigal asked George where the money was and was told that there was very little. Sigal made it clear that he wanted his share of the loot. When they arrived at Springfield on January 15, George said goodbye and left Sigal after they had wiped down the car.

During the course of the George story Sigal described George's physical appearance in some detail. When his interrogators expressed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • People v. Garner
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Mayo 1965
    ... ... Their expression in the form of a police warning was thus superfluous. Far from demanding an attorney, Schlette said he didn't want one. He knowingly waived his right to silence and his right to counsel. (Cf. People v. Sigal, 221 Cal.App. 2d 684, 702-703, 34 Cal.Rptr. 767.) ...         'In determining whether a waiver is 'intelligent' as well as 'knowing,' the circumstances of the interrogation and the suspect's capacity to understand the consequences of his actions are factors. (Cf., In re Johnson, 62 ... ...
  • People v. Dorado
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 29 Enero 1965
    ...New York (1959), 360 U.S. 315, 321, n. 2, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265.4 See discussion of Justice Friedman, in People v. Sigal (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 684, 703, 34 Cal.Rptr. 767.5 'Implicit in Escobedo is the proposition that in a pretrial police interrogation the accused has a right to rem......
  • People v. Stout
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 Marzo 1967
    ...counsel it does not follow that it would bear upon the admissibility of any of the extrajudicial statements (see People v. Sigal (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 684, 34 Cal.Rptr. 767), as the only statements of any substance were made prior to the claimed denial and, accordingly, could not have flowe......
  • People v. Lovato
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Enero 1968
    ...It is clear, however, that the prosecutor laid an adequate foundation for admissibility under the rule articulated in People v. Sigal, 221 Cal.App.2d 684, 34 Cal.Rptr. 767, and that defendant's hearsay objection was entirely without merit. Both the interpreter and the reporter testified and......
  • 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