People v. Trout

• Citation: 2 Cal.Rptr. 445
• Decision Date: 29 January 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 3576
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse Eugene TROUT, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 445

2 Cal.Rptr. 445

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse Eugene TROUT, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3576.

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

Jan. 29, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1960.

Hearing Granted March 23, 1960.

Opinion vacated 6 Cal.Rptr. 759.

Benjamin F. Marlowe, Oakland, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TOBRINER, Justice.

Convicted upon trial by jury of a violation of Penal Code, § 209, kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and section 211, robbery in the first degree, defendant appeals upon the grounds, among others, that an alleged coerced confession, some exhibits and certain testimony should not have been admitted into evidence. The record, in our judgment, compels us to sustain defendant's contentions as to the confession and in part as to the exhibits and testimony.

Our review will be in the sequence of (1) the facts of the crime, (2) the nature of the confession and statements, (3) the methods employed by the police to obtain them, and (4) the application to the foregoing of the appropriate legal tests. We shall then analyze an instruction on confessions and admissions; finally, we determine the admissibility of the testimony and exhibits.

The crime was a particularly obnoxious one. On December 22, 1957, at about 8 p.m., an armed man, subsequently identified as Allen Hecht, demanded admittance to the home of Blain R. Groo, the manager of Pay Less Grocery and Market, a large grocery and supermarket located at Mountain Boulevard, Oakland. Threatening to shoot Groo if he did not comply, Hecht demanded that Groo accompany him to the store, there to open the company's safes. Hecht forced Groo to call his wife, and then threatened to throw a bottle of acid in Mrs. Groo's face unless Groo told him where the store keys were hidden. Hecht found the store keys; meanwhile a second bandit, upon summons of Hecht and addressed by Hecht as 'Ralph,' entered the house. The two men forced the Groos to drive with them in the Groos' car to the market. During the drive, Hecht threatened to shoot Mrs. Groo in the spine if Groo did not cooperate. He told Groo that there would be another man at the store with a submachine gun who would 'mow every one of you down' if Groo caused trouble.

At the market the men forced Groo to open the two safes belonging to the company; they took the money and checks and then locked the Gross in a large refrigerator in the store. Before he left, Hecht told Groo that it was then about 9 p. m. and the police would be there in about 20 minutes to let them out. Some seven hours later, at about 4 a. m., the Groos succeeded in escaping from the locked refrigerator and summoning the police.

The day after the robbery the Groos were taken to the Berkeley Police Department where they identified a picture of Hecht as one of the robbers. The police found Hecht at his apartment in Fairfax. When Hecht threatened the officers with two guns a shooting foray occurred, and Hecht was killed. A search of his person produced a newspaper with the name, address and home phone number of Groo on it. On the reverse side there was written the address '1162 Bryant.' In the driveway the police found a 1956 Oldsmobile bearing a license number registered to the defendant. They likewise discovered in the apartment credit slips for gasoline, carrying the license number of the car and defendant's name. And in the glove compartment of the car they found a black leather blackjack.

'1162 Bryant' Street turned out to be the address of Fargo Company in San Francisco, a firm which makes and distributes police equipment. On December 18, 1957 defendant and another man had purchased a leather blackjack at the Fargo Company. A leather blackjack can be purchased only by law enforcement officers. Defendant, then a guard at San Quentin, showed his credentials in order to make the purchase.

After discovering the evidence pertaining to defendant, the police officers went to his home in Fairfax and questioned Mr. and Mrs. Trout regarding it. We deal here with two statements which the police officers themselves obtained from the Trouts and a statement which Trout gave San Quentin officials.

Defendant's statement to the officers, made on December 24, 1957, sets out that defendant, while a guard at San Quentin, met Hecht; that their association continued, contrary to prison regulations, after Hecht's release; that they planned to start a service station. The statement proceeds with the following narration. About two weeks before the robbery Hecht told defendant that he was being pressed for money and that he knew of a place that he 'thought was reasonably safe and thought we could get it with no trouble.' The Sundary before the robbery Hecht took defendant to the market and they 'drove over and drove around' it. The following Wednesday Hecht explained his plan to 'go to these people's house.' Defendant objected, '* * * I thought it was just a little too much, that I had a family of my own and wasn't even interested,' but Hecht assured defendant he wouldn't 'see the people' or be 'involved in any way.' Hecht told defendant there would be another man who would participate but did not name him.

The account continues that on December 22, at about 6 p.m., Hecht and defendant left defendant's home in Hecht's car. They stopped at a coffee shop in Oakland for about an hour and a half; they had a drink at a bar; they drove around until about 7:40 or 7:45 p. m. Defendant let Hecht out at a drugstore on a corner at Fruitvale, going back to the market, circling it until he saw a Buick parked in front, and then driving to a prearranged meeting place at Park and Fruitvale. Shortly after, Hecht drove up in the Buick, left it there, joined defendant, and Hecht and defendant went to defendant's home. The statement concludes with the explanation that defendant did not see any of the money stolen and had no knowledge of its disposition.

Shortly after the above confession defendant made another statement to the San Quentin officials. In this statement defendant described how he became involved with Hecht. When asked, 'Did you actually know what was going on, I mean on this job Sunday night,' defendant replied, 'Yes.'

The third statement was that of Mrs. Trout, rendered to the police at about 2:30 or 3:00 a. m. on December 24. According to it, Hecht on the afternoon of December 22, came to the Trout home, leaving it about 4 p. m. but returning for supper at about 5 p. m. Mrs. Trout left the home at 5:30 to go to a church function; she returned at approximately 9 or 9:30 p. m. At about 10:15 p. m. Hecht and her husband came back. Before she left for church her husband had told her that if her folks asked where he was she should tell them that he was working on the house.

We turn to the facts on the crucial nature of the methods which the police used to obtain the statement of defendant; in this respect we examine the testimony of defendant himself, Mrs. Trout, Mrs. Lodolce and Lieutenant Murray.

According to defendant, on the night of December 23 at about 11 p. m. the police officers entered defendant's home, which was occupied by defendant, his wife and their three minor children. The officers first separated defendant and his wife for interrogation; later, they told defendant that they would take his wife to jail. When he protested they answered that 'she didn't have to go to jail, they didn't want to take her to jail, that it was up to * * * [him], if * * * [he] wanted to give them a statement, that is all * * * [I] had to do and they would leave her at home.' Defendant asserted that he could not confess; he 'didn't know anything about it * * * and then I was asked what manner of man I was that would allow her to go to jail when all I had to do was confess.' At about 1 a. m. defendant, his wife and the officers left their home.

The police took defendant to the inspector's office in Oakland; there, he saw his wife, but she was instructed not to talk to him and to stay in her chair. She was crying. The police then placed defendant in a holding cell. He was moved to another cell without sleeping facilities. Later he was photographed and fingerprinted. At about 6 a. m. he was put in the jail section of the prison for about an hour but was unable to sleep. He had no morning meal. At about 7 a. m. photographers took his picture and, shortly after, Lieutenant Murray interrogated him.

Lieutenant Murray outlined some of the details of the crime and told defendant several times that his wife 'should be at home with the children * * * at that particular time of the year. * * *' Lieutenant Murray said, indeed, that 'she could go home'; that all defendant 'had to do was to come clean and confess, clear this thing up and she could go home with the children.'

After the Murray interview the officers sent Mrs. Trout to see defendant. On the first occasion, Mrs. Trout told defendant she had been informed she could go home if defendant would confess; on the second, she told him that the police had first taken her to San Rafael to open the safe deposit box, and then took her home and 'the children were there.' She told 'how the baby had cried for her when she left'; 'she wanted to go home'; 'she just couldn't bear it.' After this interview, defendant told Lieutenant Murray he had decided to give the confession provided his wife would be released; he asked if Murray would let her go. Murray answered that he wished her to stay during the confession but that she could leave immediately after, at the first available transportation.

We turn from the testimony of defendant to that of Mrs. Trout. She stated that she was informed that her release would depend entirely on her husband; that she conveyed this message to defendant. And as soon as her husband completed his confession Lieutenant...