People v. Turner
Decision Date | 21 November 1984 |
Docket Number | Cr. 21456 |
Citation | 690 P.2d 669,37 Cal.3d 302,208 Cal.Rptr. 196 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 690 P.2d 669 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Dean TURNER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Fred Baker, San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Steven H. Zeigen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, for defendant and appellant.
DefendantRichard Dean Turner was convicted under the 1978 death penalty law (Pen.Code, § 190 et seq.)1 on two counts of first degree murder.Special circumstance allegations that the murders were committed during commission of burglary ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and that Turner was convicted of more than one offense of murder ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) were found to be true.The jury fixed the punishment at death.The appeal is automatic.(Cal.Const., art. VI, § 11;§ 1239, subd. (b).)Codefendant William Souza, similarly charged and convicted, was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Merle and Freda Claxton, 78 and 77 years old respectively, were killed on March 8, 1979.At about 9:45 p.m. on that date, the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department investigated a citizen's report that two cars were being stripped in nearby bushes.Sheriff's deputies found a Pinto station wagon and a Comet, both with lights on and doors open.On top of the vehicles, they saw a shotgun, a portable television, and a radio.Two rifles were found in one of the vehicles, and the deputies found another rifle in the bushes, 2 as well as a file cabinet, cans of paint, household goods (pots, pans, etc.), and frozen food.The cars were registered to Merle Claxton.The deputies found two wallets on the floorboard of the Comet: one had cards belonging to Merle Claxton, the other contained identification for a Richard Turner.
Deputy Jecusco arrived at the Claxton house about 11 p.m.; all the lights were on, the front and garage doors were open, and the window to the den was smashed.As he entered, Jecusco noted a bullet hole in the front door and a .22 cartridge on the threshold.The house had been ransacked.Jecusco saw a dog lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the den.Finally, in the kitchen, he found the bodies of a man and a woman.
Deputy Hurst, a footprints expert, preserved prints in and outside the house and backtracked from the Claxton residence to a small cabin about a half mile distant.The footprints found at the cabin and those found near the two vehicles were identical.They were followed for 12 miles into the desert where the deputies came upon Turner and Souza hiding behind a bush.
Deputy Hurst handcuffed Souza and asked if he had any weapons.Souza replied, "We left them behind at the cars."At about the same time, Deputy Trumbull asked Turner where the guns were.Turner responded, The shoes worn by the suspects made prints which conformed with those observed earlier at the Claxton residence.In Souza's pockets, Hurst found a .22 caliber cartridge, a wallet with the initials FMC, and a lighter inscribed "Freda and Merle 50th anniversary, 1918-1968."
Bryan Lay, 11 years old and a neighbor of the Claxtons, recognized the newspaper pictures of Turner and Souza as two men he and a friend had met and talked with at the cabin near the Claxton residence.One of the men had identified himself as William; the other had told Bryan he used to live on Deep Creek Road.
An autopsy revealed that Merle Claxton had suffered two gunshot wounds, one to the chest that went through the heart, the other to the right side of his face near his mouth.The doctor concluded that the wound in the heart was inflicted first.Freda Claxton had suffered one gunshot wound to the back of the head.The wounds to both victims were consistent with having been caused by a .22 caliber weapon; the bullets retrieved from the victims were consistent with having been fired from the Marlin rifle.
Turner did not testify and presented no evidence in his defense.
Souza testified: He met Turner at a halfway house in Stockton the month before the homicides; on the day of the murders, the two, in the company of other people, swam and drank beer ("more than a six-pack") in the Deep Creek area; he and Turner each purchased and smoked a "Sherman," described as "like PCP"; the Sherman made them very hungry and on the way back to the cabin in which they were staying, they decided to burglarize a house for food; they decided on the Claxton house because it looked as if nobody were home and because it was not easily seen from the road.
Souza knocked while Turner, armed with a rifle, waited around the corner of the house; when the lights came on and a dog barked, Souza became frightened and ran; he ran past Turner whom he described as looking "crazy" with eyeballs "punching out of his head"; when about 50 yards from the house, he heard three gunshots; thinking his friend was in trouble, he returned just in time to see Turner's foot going into the house through a broken window; Turner let him in the front door, then ordered him to "get the stuff, get the hell out of here"; as he complied, Souza saw the victims lying on the floor; he picked up a rifle lying on the floor nearest to Merle Claxton, but not within his arm's reach.3
Souza testified further that he did as he was ordered because Turner was pointing the gun at him and behaving very strangely: Souza also testified that it looked as though Turner had gone into "one of those wack attacks," and described the behavior as "hallucinating or something."
While in jail, Turner told Souza that he shot Merle Claxton because "he had a gun" and was about to shoot Turner; Freda Claxton was shot by accident--she jumped in front of her husband as Turner was attempting to shoot him the second time.
Souza admitted that, while in custody, he asked Turner to take responsibility for both killings.Souza was also aware that Turner told Detective Malmberg that he, Turner, was going to take the blame for both killings to take Souza off the hook.
This conversation was confirmed by Malmberg during rebuttal, when he testified to an encounter at the county jail in which Turner told him that he was going to "cop" to both murders to get his partner off the hook.Turner at no time told Malmberg that he was guilty of the murders nor did he ever say that he shot the Claxtons.
Detective Malmberg was also recalled by Turner and, on surrebuttal, testified that no footprints were seen on the side of the house where, according to Souza's testimony, Turner was said to be waiting as Souza knocked on the door of the Claxton residence.
The only theory of murder advanced by the prosecution was felony murder and the jury was instructed only on that theory.The jury was instructed that malice is express when there is manifested an intent to kill and that it is implied when the killing is a direct causal result of the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate a burglary.It was also instructed that "the unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional, or accidental, which occurs as a result of the commission or attempt to commit the crime of burglary, and where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime, is murder of the first degree."
The jury found both Turner and Souza guilty of two counts of first degree murder.The jury also found the charged special circumstances to be true--one, multiple murders and, two, murder committed during commission of burglary.
Turner raises numerous claims of error with respect to the guilt and special circumstances phase of the trial.We treat the issues in chronological order: first the pretrial issues relating to consolidation of the cases for trial and the selection of the jury; second, evidentiary rulings and other motions during the course of trial; third, alleged instructional errors; and finally, the validity of the special circumstances.
Turner contends that the trial court erred in consolidating his trial with that of Souza.Originally, Turner and Souza were jointly charged by complaint in municipal court.Illness of counsel resulted in separate preliminary hearings and separate accusatory pleadings.Thereafter, though technically severed, the cases proceeded through the courts together.Eventually, on motion of the People and over the objection of both defendants, they were formally consolidated for trial.
Penal Code section 1098 states the general preference for joint trials:
The matter of granting separate trials nevertheless remains largely within the discretion of the trial court(People v. Graham(1969)71 Cal.2d 303, 330, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153), guided by the principles set out in People v. Massie(1967)66 Cal.2d 899, 59 Cal.Rptr. 733, 428 P.2d 869.The court should separate the trial of codefendants "in the face of an incriminating confession, prejudicial association with codefendants, likely confusion resulting...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
People v. Ainsworth
...Nor is this the first capital case where codefendants have had diverse and conflicting interests. In People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669, remarkably similar to the instant case in that one defendant testified in his own defense by painting the other defend......
-
People v. Ruiz
...not be discussed here. (See People v. Frank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 711, 734, 214 Cal.Rptr. 801, 700 P.2d 415; People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 313-315, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669; People v. Zimmerman (1984) 36 Cal.3d 154, 161, 202 Cal.Rptr. 826, 680 P.2d 776; People v. Fields (1983) 35......
-
People v. Hovey
...be reconsidered here. (See People v. Frank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 711, 734, 214 Cal.Rptr. 801, 700 P.2d 415; People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 313-315, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669; People v. Zimmerman (1984) 36 Cal.3d 154, 161, 202 Cal.Rptr. 826, 680 P.2d 776; People v. Fields (1983) 35 ......
- People v. Guerra