People v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 17 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. B176608.,B176608. |
| Citation | 124 Cal.App.4th 104,21 Cal.Rptr.3d 126 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Ronald Decker, Real Party in Interest. |
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran and Matthew G. Monforton, Deputy District Attorneys for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Roger J. Rosen, Los Angeles, and Diane E. Berley, Woodland Hills, for Real Party in Interest.
A man wants his sister killed. With the specific intent of causing her death, he engages another person to murder her. He furnishes that person with specific information describing his sister, the means for gaining access to her residence, her work habits and the times she is likely to be at home. They agree on the means to commit the murder, other details, and price. The hired assassin warns that once he receives the down payment there will be no way to prevent the murder from occurring. The man reiterates his demand that there be no witnesses, and that if his sister is with her friend when the killing occurs, the friend also is to be killed. The man then hands the hired assassin the down payment. It turns out that the person engaged to kill his sister is a detective posing as a killer and that he had no intention of actually killing the sister. We hold that these circumstances are sufficient to hold the man who engaged the killer for the crime of attempted murder. In so doing, we disagree with the conclusion reached in People v. Adami (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 452, 111 Cal.Rptr. 544, where, under similar facts, the court concluded that the crime committed could be no greater than solicitation of murder.
In this case, the magistrate refused to hold the man who wanted his sister killed to answer for attempted murder, but bound him over for trial on the lesser charge of solicitation of murder. The prosecution filed an information charging attempted murder. The trial court granted a motion under Penal Code section 995, ruling that the evidence presented was sufficient for solicitation of murder but not attempted murder. (All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.) The prosecution sought a writ of mandate from this court, directing the trial court to reinstate the charge of attempted murder. We issued an order to show cause and a temporary stay of proceedings. We now grant the writ petition.1
Ronald Decker was charged with the attempted murder of his sister. He is the real party in interest in the proceedings before this court. The factual basis of the charge was developed at the felony preliminary hearing. Following is a summary of that evidence.
Russell Wafer, a gunsmith, received a call from Decker, whom he did not then know. Decker said he was looking for someone to do some work. Decker met Wafer at the latter's place of work in Temple City, and asked that they go outside to talk. They did. Decker said he was looking for a "contractor." Decker explained that "he wanted someone taken care of." He told Wafer that it was a local job and that he wanted someone executed because that person owed him money and "he could not receive it until their demise." Wafer told Decker that he did not do that kind of work, and asked why Decker did not do the job himself. Decker responded that he would be the first one suspected. The two men then discussed what the job might cost, and Wafer told him that he might be able to get a junkie to do it for $5,000. Wafer indicated that he knew someone (John) in Detroit who might do the job. A price of $35,000 was discussed, and Decker said he would not have the money until some 30 days after the "execution was completed." Decker was to call Wafer in about a week to find out if Wafer was able to locate John in Detroit. Wafer was to receive a $3,000 finder's fee for setting it up.
Later, as planned, Decker called Wafer, who told him that John would be in town within the next few days. Wafer had not tried to contact John. Instead, he called the Sheriff's Department. He spoke to Detective Wayne Holston at that department, who asked Wafer to set up a meeting with Decker, and that was done. The meeting was at a golf course in Arcadia. Wafer introduced Decker to Holston, whom he referred to as John. Wafer then left them to talk alone. Later, he and Holston left the area. They returned for a second meeting two days later, and Decker had another private discussion with Holston, posing as John. Later, Wafer saw Decker open the trunk of his car. Decker apparently was pleased with the meeting; he sought to shake Wafer's hand, and said he would have a payment for him in 30-32 days.
The substance of the conversation between Detective Holston and Decker came from Holston's testimony at the felony preliminary hearing, and the transcripts of recordings made of their conversations. Holston wore an electronic device to record the discussion, and the meeting was videotaped by surveilling officers in the area.
At their first meeting, Decker told Holston that "he had a job for me, saying that he had a female, his sister, that he wanted taken out" because she owed him a lot of money. Decker explained that he could not do the job himself because he would be a prime suspect and he wanted the job done by a professional. At first he wanted the killing staged as an auto accident, but he was dissuaded from that because death would not be certain. Decker wanted "certain death, totally expired." Decker told Holston that if a firearm was used Holston "would need to use a suppressor, and shoot her once to the heart and once to the head" to "ensure death."
Decker had discussed a surveillance and a possible burglary. When Holston asked if he wanted his sister to be sexually assaulted, Decker responded "whatever it takes." Decker told Holston that the basic job "paid" $25,000, with a $10,000 bonus "if he was happy, it was a clean job." Decker promised to pay $5,000 as a down payment, and would need 30-32 days to get the rest.
Decker provided substantial information about his sister: her name, a physical description (which Decker also had written on paper towels, which he retrieved from the trunk of his vehicle), her residence, her vehicle, her place of employment, and her friend, Hermine. Decker did not like Hermine, and said that if Holston had to kill her too, he should do so. Decker said he wanted the job done as soon as possible, and Holston told him he could get it done within a week. Decker thought that was "marvelous," and seemed quite pleased.
The two men agreed to meet the next day for transmittal of the down payment. That meeting also was sound recorded and videotaped. Decker said he had the $5,000 down payment in cash. Holston asked Decker if he was sure he wanted his sister killed, "because once I received the money and I left, that I was going to go into action and that the job would be completed, and that his sister would be killed and there is no way to stop me from going forward with this." Decker responded that he was Decker added that he understood that no witnesses could be left, so that "if that's the case, to kill Hermine also." He could not pay more, "but that he didn't mind seeing her killed too." Decker then gave Holston the $5,000, in two plastic-wrapped bundles which he retrieved from the trunk of his vehicle. Decker seemed very pleased, and was not nervous at all.
Decker was charged with attempted murder as well as solicitation of murder.2 The magistrate expressed doubt about the correctness of People v. Adami, but considered himself bound by that decision. He dismissed the attempted murder counts, but held Decker to answer on all other charges. In the subsequent information, the People again charged Decker with attempted murder. Decker filed a section 995 motion to dismiss the attempted murder counts, and the People filed opposition. The trial judge ruled the same way as the magistrate; he dismissed the attempted murder counts based on People v. Adami, while expressing the view that the time may be at hand for that case to be re-examined. The People's petition for mandate followed.
The crime of attempt is comprised of two elements: a specific intent to commit the target offenses, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward committing them. (§ 664; People v. Miller (1935) 2 Cal.2d 527, 530, 42 P.2d 308.) Like attempt, the crime of solicitation requires that the solicitor intend that the crime be committed. It also requires that the person solicit another person to commit the crime or join in its commission. (§ 653f.) Solicitation applies only to specified target offenses, listed in the statute. Murder is one of them. (§ 653f, subd. (b).) An attempt requires an overt act that goes beyond preparation; it must be such that, unless interrupted, it would ordinarily result in the completed crime. (People v. Miller, supra, 2 Cal.2d 527, 530, 42 P.2d 308.) For solicitation, the crime is complete when the request is made; the harm is in the asking, and no further acts toward commission of the target crime need occur. (People v. Miley (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 25, 33, 204 Cal.Rptr. 347.) "The essence of criminal solicitation is an attempt to induce another to commit a criminal offense." (People v. Herman (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 1369, 1381, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 199.) The punishment for an attempted murder that is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, is 15 years to life in state prison. (§ 664, subd. (f).) For solicitation of murder the punishment is considerably less, a triad of 3, 6, or 9 years. (§ 653f, subd. (b).)
Most of the disputed jurisprudence on the law of attempt focuses on the point at which the acts move beyond "mere preparation" and into the active phase, toward accomplishment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Superior Court
-
Century Sur. Co. v. Crosby Ins., Inc.
... ... CROSBY INSURANCE, INC. et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents ... No. E033550 ... Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2 ... November 17, 2004 ... [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 117] ... ...