People v. Von Villas
| Decision Date | 16 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. B041110,B041110 |
| Citation | 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112,11 Cal.App.4th 175 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Anthony VON VILLAS and Richard Herman Ford, Defendants and Appellants. |
Mark D. Greenberg, Berkeley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Richard Herman Ford.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Marc E. Turchin, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen. and Paul C. Ament, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
*
Because of the unique procedural history of this case, it is appropriate to set forth at length the various twists and turns it followed. Janie Ogilvie, Robert Anthony Von Villas and Richard Herman Ford were named defendants in an indictment returned by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on February 15, 1984. Each defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Pen.Code, § 182; all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated) and murder ( § 187.) Thomas Weed was the victim. The special circumstance of murder for financial gain ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(1)) was alleged.
Ms. Ogilvie, Von Villas and Ford requested a post-indictment preliminary hearing on March 16, 1984, and on March 22, 1985, the preliminary hearing resulted in an information being filed against Von Villas and Ford as defendants. Ms. Ogilvie became a non-defendant co-conspirator, and Joyce Reynolds and Julie Rabold were also named as non-defendant co-conspirators.
On May 14, 1985, Von Villas and Ford challenged the information through a section 995 motion. Concomitantly, the prosecution filed a motion to consolidate the case with another prosecution pending against the defendants involving the attempted murder of Joan Loguercio, inter alia. 1
On July 15, 1985, the section 995 motion was conditionally granted in part by Judge Altman. On July 17, 1985, Judge Altman was the subject of a peremptory challenge pursuant to section 170.6 of the Code On August 26, 1985, the prosecution's motion to consolidate the Loguercio and Weed cases was granted, and on August 27, 1985, Judge Williams modified Judge Altman's conditional ruling on the section 995 motion, allowing twenty-five overt acts to be charged in the conspiracy count of the Weed case as opposed to the one overt act allowed to be charged in that count by Judge Altman.
of Civil Procedure by the prosecution. On July 25, 1985, the case was assigned to Judge Williams.
On October 14, 1986, the prosecution filed an amended information, consolidating the Loguercio and Weed cases.
During the eleven month period between Judge William's ruling on the section 995 motion and motion to consolidate and the filing of the amended information, extensive pretrial motions were heard.
On March 10, 1987, Judge Williams granted Von Villas' and Ford's motion to transfer the Weed case to the Northwest District because of constitutional venue considerations. That ruling was stayed until the completion of the trial of the Loguercio case before Judge Williams, which trial was concluded on January 7, 1988.
The Weed case was then transferred to the Northwest District on January 21, 1988, where it was assigned to Judge Schempp for all purposes on January 27, 1988.
Ford filed a motion for separate trials before Judge Schempp on April 5, 1988, which was denied. He was, however, granted the right to be tried by a separate jury from that which would hear the Von Villas evidence.
The trial of Von Villas and Ford commenced on July 5, 1988, both juries hearing evidence at times together, and at other times out of the presence of one another.
The Ford jury returned verdicts of guilty as to all charges and found the special circumstance allegation to be true on October 11, 1988. At the time of delivery of the Ford verdict, the Von Villas jury was in the midst of the defense case.
The Von Villas jury returned verdicts of guilty as to all charges and found the special circumstance allegation to be true on November 3, 1988.
Ford's penalty phase trial commenced on November 7, 1988, and was submitted to the jury on November 22, 1988. Von Villas' penalty phase trial commenced on November 28, 1988, and was submitted to the jury on December 13, 1988.
On November 29, 1988, the Ford penalty phase jury announced that it was dead-locked and it was discharged. The prosecution elected not to proceed with a new penalty phase against Ford, the jury having voted 11-1 in favor of life without the possibility of parole.
On December 15, 1988, the Von Villas penalty phase jury fixed his punishment as life without the possibility of parole.
On February 23, 1989, Ford was sentenced to a term of life without possibility of parole on the murder with special circumstance count, and twenty-five years to life on the conspiracy count. The sentence on the conspiracy count was stayed pursuant to section 654, and the life without possibility of parole sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the 36 years to life sentence imposed upon him in the Loguercio case.
Von Villas was sentenced on March 8, 1988, to the same sentences that were imposed upon Ford. The life without possibility of parole sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the 35 years to life sentence imposed upon Von Villas in the Loguercio case.
Von Villas and Ford appeal from their convictions below.
Mr. Weed was employed by Medical Coordinating Associates for the purpose of preparing advertising. On Wednesday, February 23, 1983, he brought some artwork into the office that had to be taken to Mr. Weed did appear at Grand Prix Auto Body, Inc. at approximately 4:30 p.m. on February 23, in order to sign a power of attorney for an insurance draft. Warden Black, the operator of that business, recalled seeing him. Ms. Ogilvie, Mr. Weed's estranged spouse, came in to sign the joint draft sometime after Mr. Weed left the premises. Mr. Weed spent about thirty minutes at the shop and was agitated and upset. He talked about his divorce from Ms. Ogilvie. Mr. Black recalled that both parties were required to sign the draft before he could release the car, which belonged to Ms. Ogilvie's son, and which had been repaired.
the printers for a Thursday deadline. Mrs. Marilyn Baron, an employee of that office, saw him on the 23, but never saw him thereafter and never was able to contact him again. Mr. Weed had never caused problems before and was not owed money by the company. Mrs. Baron's daughter, Helen Epler, also last saw Mr. Weed on February 23. After unsuccessful attempts to reach him on Thursday and Friday of that week, she called the police about his disappearance on Friday, February 25, 1983.
Christina Brockstedt, the apartment manager for Mr. Weed's apartment complex, entered his apartment sometime toward the end of February 1983 at the request of Ruth Caplan, Mr. Weed's sister. She entered with a neighbor and found the apartment very hot, since the heat had been left on. Mr. Weed was nowhere to be found. His clothes were neatly stored along with two empty suitcases, and appropriate toiletry articles. There was stale bread and melted butter on the table, and, to Ms. Brockstedt, it looked as though Mr. Weed had stepped out and would be returning. Mr. Weed had been late with his rent but once--in March 1982.
On March 4, 1983, Officer Jack Dillard of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) assigned to Devonshire Division, entered Mr. Weed's apartment with the manager. He was responding to a station call reporting Mr. Weed as missing. He made observations identical to those made by Ms. Brockstedt.
John Sharp, a good friend of Mr. Weed's, lived in a suburb of Toronto, Canada, and kept in contact telephonically with Mr. Weed and his then wife on a regular basis since 1977, the year the Weeds moved to California. Mr. and Mrs. Weed had been divorced after their arrival in California. Mr. Sharp and Mr. Weed would talk to each other on special occasions, such as birthdays. He spoke to Mr. Weed sometime between February 18 and 20, 1983, in order to wish him a happy birthday. Weed's birthday was on February 28. Mr. Sharp regularly received birthday greetings from Mr. Weed, but never received another call from Mr. Weed after the February, 1983, talk.
Ruth Caplan, Mr. Weed's sister, lived in Canada but was very close to Mr. Weed even after he moved to California. After Mr. Weed's divorce from Betty Weed, Mrs. Caplan and her husband joined Mr. Weed and his new wife, Janie Ogilvie, in Las Vegas on the weekend of the Weed-Ogilvie marriage on November 7, 1981. The Caplans also visited Mr. Weed and Ms. Ogilvie for two weeks during the 1981 Christmas holidays, and Mrs. Caplan sensed tension between the newlyweds. Ms. Ogilvie was heard to say that she did not need men now that she was established and that she could do things by herself. Ms. Ogilvie spoke with Mrs. Caplan after the Caplans returned to Canada. She said Mrs. Caplan told her that she was talking foolishly. On March 21, 1982, Ms. Ogilvie wrote Mrs. Caplan indicating that she, Ms. Ogilvie, was obsessed with Mrs. Caplan and that she felt that Mrs. Caplan and Mr. Weed were ganging up on her and cheating her.
Mrs. Caplan called Ms. Ogilvie in 1983 to find her brother, and Ms. Ogilvie hung up on her.
On February 20, 1983, Mrs. Caplan had her final conversation with Mr. Weed when he called her at her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Strohl
...against unreasonable searches and seizures." 26 Cal.App.3d at 402, 102 Cal.Rptr. at 681. See, also, People v. Von Villas, 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 (1992) (holding that there is no expectation of privacy in jail visiting area and that federal wiretap statute does not apply in s......
-
People v. Hines, S006640
...and seizure]; Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 196 Cal.Rptr. 704, 672 P.2d 110 [same]; People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 223-225, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 [Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Defendant also contends that the recorded jail conversation violated his......
-
14 Cal.4th 1089A, Visciotti, In re
...refuse to, that even substantial aggravating evidence does not compel the ultimate sanction. (See, e.g., People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 [life imprisonment without possibility of parole for each of two police officers who conspired to commit, and did commi......
-
People v. Von Villas, B080766
...the extraneous material was not inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror. (See People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 251, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112.) Under the second test, looking to the nature of the misconduct and the surrounding circumstances we determine that......
-
Table of cases
...3d 323, §22:230 Vomaska v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 905, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, §22:160 Von Villas, People v. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 175, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 112, §§9:100, 10:120, 12:80, 20:70 Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 998, 62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 164, §9:110 Vu v. Prud......
-
Hearsay
...broadly construe the phrase in Evid. Code §1223 “in furtherance of the objective of that conspiracy.” People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 175, 231, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 112. While a conspiracy is usually deemed to have ended when the substantive crime has either been completed or thwar......
-
Table of cases
...v. Von Staden (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1423, §1:31.1 People v. Von Villas (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 201, §5:111.2 People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, §§9:40.9, 9:93 People v. Vournazos (1998) 198 Cal.App.3d 948, §14:31 People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, §12:19.8 People v. W......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...that is admitted into evidence. To be admissible, tape recordings need not be completely intelligible. People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175. Evid. C. §1553 starts out: A printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representati......