People v. Thompkins

• Decision Date: 30 September 1987
• Citation: 195 Cal.App.3d 244,240 Cal.Rptr. 516
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rufus THOMPKINS, Defendant and Appellant. D004823.

Page 516

240 Cal.Rptr. 516

195 Cal.App.3d 244

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rufus THOMPKINS, Defendant and Appellant.

D004823.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Sept. 30, 1987.

Certified for Partial Publication ¹

Richard P. Siref, San Diego, and Appellate Defenders, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Frederick R. Millar, Jr., and Yvonne H. Behart, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

WIENER, Acting Presiding Justice.

In this appeal from a judgment of conviction on charges of first degree murder, attempted murder and burglary, we consider the effect of a trial judge's response to inquiries from the jury regarding the defendant's heat-of-passion defense, the central issue in the case, after the jury had announced itself deadlocked. While it is true his one and two-word comments had the desired effect of breaking the deadlock, the judge's "guidance" was legally incorrect and, as we shall explain, constituted prejudicial error. Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment as to the murder and attempted murder counts.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Rufus Thompkins and the murder victim, Erma Thompkins, had been married 16 years when Erma decided she wanted a divorce in 1985. ² The couple separated in November of that year. Although Rufus spent Christmas with the family, the separation was not totally cordial. Upset by the break-up, Rufus continually phoned Erma and often parked outside the apartment complex waiting for her or one of the children. Erma obtained a restraining order preventing Rufus from entering her apartment, although she later allowed the restraining order to lapse.

Less than two weeks before the killing, Rufus spoke with Randy Hampton, a good friend who was married to Erma's sister. Rufus confided to Hampton about his strong feelings for Erma and how much the separation was bothering him. He explained he had been following Erma and thought she was seeing someone else. He wanted to convince this person to stop seeing her. If this proved unsuccessful, Rufus thought he would have to "take him out" and her as well. Hampton tried to dissuade him, pointing out the effects on his children and grandchild but Rufus persisted, saying he was willing to "do seven years for taking them out."

On January 29, 1986, Erma's boyfriend, Willie Battle, was visiting Erma at her apartment. Also at home was 12 year-old Ray Thompkins, Rufus' and Erma's son, who was babysitting his year-old niece. Rufus had told Ray about two weeks earlier that he knew Erma was seeing Battle. When Ray answered his father's knock at the door that morning, Rufus told him he had come to exchange a small television set for a larger one of his which was still at the apartment. Concerned because Battle was inside with Erma, Ray stepped outside to talk to his father.

In response to Rufus' inquiries, Ray told him that Battle was inside with his mother. Ray went back into the apartment and told Rufus to wait at the front door. Instead Erma told Rufus he had no right to barge in on her like that. Rufus said something to Battle about being in bed with his wife. Battle replied he thought they were separated. Rufus' hands were shaking. Battle started to get up. Rufus pulled a gun from his waistband, pulled back the hammer and fired one shot at Erma. As Erma fell, he turned and shot Battle, then turned again and fired a second shot at Erma. He then fled from the apartment. Erma died of a gunshot wound to the heart. Battle recovered but suffered some permanent nerve damage to his arm.

                Rufus followed Ray to the closed door of his mother's [195 Cal.App.3d 248] bedroom.  Ray said, "Mom, Dad's here."   Rufus pushed Ray aside, opened the door and discovered Erma and Battle in bed together.  Erma was hurriedly putting some clothes on.  Rufus went inside and closed the door
                

Approximately 50 minutes later and about a quarter mile from Erma's apartment, Rufus flagged down a police car and turned himself in. Rufus' car was discovered still parked at the apartment in a parking space next to Willie Battle's car. A search yielded two suitcases packed with clothes and various other personal belongings. The gun was never found.

A San Diego Gas and Electric Company employee who was working at the apartment complex on the morning of August 29 testified that at approximately 11 a.m. he heard a boy screaming and saw a black man wearing a short-sleeved white shirt run from the complex and scale a concrete wall. About a half hour earlier, this same gas company employee had seen a black man "hanging out" around the complex. He assumed it was the same man because he also was wearing a short-sleeved white shirt.

Rufus testified that when he arrived at Erma's apartment to exchange television sets, he did not know Willie Battle was there although he knew Erma had been seeing Battle. He did not come to the apartment intending to kill anyone. He was only exchanging television sets because he had decided to accept his cousin's offer to come stay with him in Pasadena. He brought his gun with him because Erma had a gun and had previously made threats against him.

When Ray let him into the apartment, Rufus told him to tell Erma he was there. He then followed Ray down the hallway and heard the sounds of lovemaking coming from Erma's bedroom. Rufus became upset and began crying. He pushed Ray aside, opened the door and confronted Erma and Battle. Rufus asked Battle if he knew Erma was his wife. Battle replied he thought they were separated. Erma was complaining that Rufus had no right to barge in on her like that. Rufus told her he didn't barge in, Ray let him in. Rufus then stepped back toward the bedroom door and started to wipe his eyes. As he did so, he saw Battle make a quick move which he interpreted as Battle reaching for a gun under the mattress. At the same time, Erma reached for a jewelry box on the dresser. Rufus testified, "My emotions just took over at that point. And I just went off at that point.... I shot Mr. Battles [sic]. And then I shot my wife."

Rufus admitted shooting Erma twice after he shot Battle. He then panicked and fled from the apartment, leaving his car behind. While running along North River Road a short distance from the apartment, Rufus lost the gun. He looked back and saw three Latin-looking individuals who appeared to have retrieved it. When he later returned with police to look for the gun, it was gone. Rufus denied knowing that Willie Battle had a car or what it looked like. He also denied being at the apartment complex a half-hour before the shootings.

DISCUSSION

I

At least as early as Manning's Case (1793) 83 Eng.Rep. 112, ³ an archtypical illustration During the second day of deliberations, the jury notified the court that it was deadlocked and that there was no reasonable probability it could reach a unanimous verdict. The court inquired whether there was anything it could do to assist the jury. The foreperson suggested that "a little clarification from you about one aspect of the law might be helpful to us." The judge then directed the jurors to return to the jury room and formulate their questions in writing. When they returned to the courtroom, the judge stated as follows:

of adequate provocation sufficient to invoke the common law heat-of-passion theory for voluntary manslaughter has been the defendant's discovery of his wife in bed with another man. Not surprisingly, then, Rufus' principal theory of defense to the charge of first degree murder attempted to cast him as the emotionally distraught husband unexpectedly confronted with the reality of his wife's adultery. In contrast, the prosecution's case emphasized the events preceding the shootings which would tend to portray Rufus as having premeditated the killing of Erma Thompkins and Willie Battle.

"Okay. Well, I will now read your question and try to answer it, as to Count 1. And then I will send you back to deliberate further.

"All right. May 21, 1986, the clarification of CALJIC 8.20, how does premeditation and sudden heat of passion interrelate in this law, CALJIC 8.20[?] It doesn't.

"Can sudden heat of passion nullify premeditation, also in this law[?] No.

"So with that added information, please continue your deliberations...."

These statements constituted the judge's entire response to the jury's request for assistance.

The trial judge's instructions to the jury have always been recognized to be a fundamentally important stage of the criminal proceeding. (See, e.g., People v. Dagnino (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 981, 988, 146 Cal.Rptr. 129.) Indeed, one can legitimately argue that the primary function of the judge in a jury trial is to explain the applicable legal principles in such a way as to focus and define the factual issues which the jury must resolve. In this role, the trial judge acts much like a teacher or a guide; it is no accident that we refer to the trial court's obligation to "instruct" the jury on the applicable law. It is not sufficient that the trial judge be an adequate legal lecturer. Jurors are not first year law students with some independent motive for legal study. At best, they are well-meaning but temporary visitors in a foreign country attempting to comprehend a foreign language.

To perform their job properly and fairly, jurors must understand the legal principles they are charged with applying. It is the trial judge's function to facilitate such an understanding by any available means. The mere recitation of technically correct but arcane legal precepts does precious little to insure that jurors can apply the law to a given set of facts. A jury's request for reinstruction or clarification should alert the trial judge that the jury has focused on what it believes are the critical issues in the case. The judge must give these inquiries serious consideration. Why has the jury focused on this...