People v. Wheeler

Decision Date30 November 1971
Docket NumberCr. 19788
Citation100 Cal.Rptr. 198,23 Cal.App.3d 290
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eugene Edward WHEELER and Billy Wayne Wheeler, Defendants and Appellants.

Ronald S. Smith, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendants and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Nelson P. Kempsky and John H. Darlington, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

HERNDON, Associate Justice.

The verdict of the jury in this case convicting the appellants Eugene and Billy Wheeler of first degree number is supported by an unusual accumulation of direct and circumstantial evidence so incriminating as to eliminate any basis for even a scintilla of doubt. The voluminous transcripts of the testimony record the sickening story of a brutal, deliberate and premeditated killing, ridiculously senseless in its motivation and utterly savage in its execution. The vicious and remorseless nature of the killers is emphasized by the vulgarity and obscenity of the language in which they couched their own statements, both self-incriminating and self-exculpatory.

We shall indicate herein our reasons for rejecting the numerous contentions advanced by appellants' counsel. We have concluded that there is no merit in any of appellants' twelve assignments of error. Moreover, even if it were assumed that any of these assignments possessed arguable technical merit, such assumed error would necessarily be classified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the conclusive effect of the incriminating evidence.

Summary of the Evidence

On the evening of November 5, 1969, appellant Eugene Wheeler was driving his Volkswagen in North Hollywood with his close friends Lejon Hutchinson and her sister Mischell as his companions and passengers. As they proceeded Lejon conceived a brilliant plan by which they would obtain 'a dollar's worth of gas for a quarter.' As Lejon herself testified, she suggested, prior to arriving at the gas station, that Eugene tell the attendant, the victim of the homicide, to give him a quarter's worth of gasoline when they arrived. Then Mischell and Eugene would get out of the car and go to the restrooms, whereupon Lejon would tell the attendant that Eugene had asked for a dollar's worth.

When they arrived at the gas station Eugene asked for a quarter's worth of gasoline. While the lone attendant was putting gasoline into the car, Eugene and Mischell went to the restrooms. After the attendant had put a quarter's worth of gasoline into the car, Lejon told him Eugene wanted a dollar's worth. The attendant proceeded to deliver the additional amount of gasoline.

According to Lejon, the attendant was very pleasant and did not act hostile in any way while he was delivering the gasoline. When Eugene and Mischell returned to the car the attendant asked Eugene for a dollar and Eugene responded that he had asked for only a quarter's worth. At this point Eugene and the attendant went into the station office and the attendant made a telephone call. Thereafter Eugene came out, moved the car, and indicated to Mischell and Lejon that they were going to have to wait in the gas station. During this period Eugene proceeded to empty the contents of the ash trays of his vehicle on the surface of the station grounds.

Shortly thereafter the attendant's son drove into the gas station, got out of his car, took off his jacket and walked up to Eugene. A heated argument ensued. During the course of this argument one of the men, either the victim or his son, produced a broom and dust pan and tried to persuade Eugene to sweep up the debris from the ash trays. In the meantime Mischell emerged from the Volkswagen with an empty RC Cola bottle in her hand and threatened to strike one of the attendants. Lejon restrained her. Eugene then told Mischell and Lejon to get back into the car and they complied.

Following this altercation one of the men told Eugene to put the car in the lubrication area of the service station. There they proceeded to siphon some of the gasoline from the gas tank. After completing the siphoning process the attendants asked Eugene for a quarter. Eugene delivered the quarter and thereafter he and the girls made their departure. During this siphoning procedure Eugene and the two girls were cursing and laughing at the attendant outside. At that time Eugene made a statement to the girls to the effect that he should get some of his friends and jump on the attendant.

After leaving the service station and on the trip back to Eugene's apartment, Eugene appeared to be quite angry, according to the testimony of the two girls. He made statements to the effect that he might shoot the attendant. He also told the girls that he was going over to Billy's apartment and tell him that some white boys had 'jumped on him.' Billy's apartment was in the same building as Eugene's. On arriving at Billy's apartment, Eugene asked Billy if he would go back to the gas station with him and Billy replied that he would. Eugene, Lejon and Mischell then returned to Eugene's apartment where Eugene changed his shirt. According to Lejon, approximately 15 minutes had elapsed from the time they left the gas station until Eugene changed his shirt and left the apartment.

About 15 to 20 minutes later, Eugene returned to the apartment. He called three of the girls who were in the apartment into the bedroom and said, 'I got the mother-fucker.' He also said, 'I am going to need you guys. If anyone comes to the door say that I haven't left.' He further stated that he had shot the service station man; that Billy also had shot him; and that he was bleeding. Eugene said that he had shot the person once and that Billy had shot him twice with a .45. According to Lejon, Eugene was laughing at the time he made these statements.

The foregoing constitutes a summary of the testimony given by appellant's friend, Lejon Hutchinson. Her sister Mischell testified that she had known Eugene for approximately 13 years and that they were close friends. Although her professed recollection of the events of the evening of November 5, 1969, was not quite so clear, Mischell's testimony corroborated that of her sister in all material and substantial respects.

Osmo Kiiha testified that he had a partnership with his father Aarne, the victim of the homicide, in the Phillips 66 gas station at Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Saticoy Street. While he was at home on the evening of November 5, 1969, his wife answered a telephone call from Aarne who was at the gas station. When she handed Osmo the phone, she indicated that someone in the background was swearing and had said words like 'white mother-fucker.' This made Osmo a 'little upset,' and he became more so when his father related that the people in the gas station had purchased gasoline and refused to pay for it. Aarne asked Osmo to come down to the gas station and help him out. Osmo also talked to appellant Eugene Wheeler, and they had a rather heated telephonic conversation.

When he arrived at the gas station, Osmo saw two women and a man sitting in a Volkswagen. The man was appellant Eugene Wheeler. Osmo and Eugene continued their argument which had begun on the phone, and Eugene got out of his car. Osmo and Eugene were preparing to fight when the two women in the car got out and managed to prevent it. One of the women had a coke bottle in her hand and held it in a manner which indicated that she was going to hit someone with it. Aarne grabbed it and gave it to Osmo who threw it away.

Osmo noticed that there were cigarette butts strewn around on the ground in the vicinity of the Volkswagen. Aarne brought a broom and a dust pan and after a little persuasion, he and Osmo got Eugene Wheeler to clean up the cigarette butts. The atmosphere at the time was extremely hostile although Osmo did not recall any actual fighting. Throughout this time and thereafter the Kiihas and the people in the Volkswagen were calling each other names and engaging in hostile conversation.

After Eugene had finished picking up the cigarette butts, Osmo instructed him to drive onto the lube racks. Osmo then siphoned out the gasoline for which Eugene had refused to pay. Eugene and his companions then drove away.

Following this incident, Osmo left the gas station for his home. Between 15 and 20 minutes after he left the gas station he received a telephone call from someone who informed him that his father had been shot. He slammed the phone down and drove to the gas station. When Osmo arrived at the gas station his father had been removed. There were a number of police officers there, however. While he was talking to the police officers, Osmo noticed appellant Billy Wheeler when he drove into the gas station. Osmo told him that his father had been shot, and Billy stated that he had just driven in to get some water. He 'acted surprised' at what had happened. When the police questioned Billy, Osmo indicated to them that he thought Billy could not have been the person who shot his father because he had been coming to the station for the last few weeks as a regular customer.

The witness Claudette Trottier testified that on the evening of November 5, she heard a loud noise while she was sitting at the cash register in her restaurant which was located across the street from the service station. The register was 'right next' to the window at the front of the restaurant. The noise frightened her. She looked out the window in the direction of the gas station across the street. The lights were on next to the pumps on the Laurel Canyon side. She saw Billy Wheeler standing on the Laurel Canyon side of the gas station between the pumps and the office portion of the building. He was holding a gun in his hand. She saw him shoot the gun, move his hand and shoot again. Thereafter, he turned and jumped into the driver's side of a white car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Remiro
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 1979
    ...the contention. Stovall has no application to an in-court identification during a formal judicial hearing. (See People v. Wheeler (1971) 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 100 Cal.Rptr. 198.) Moreover, the record demonstrates that the identifications by the witnesses Damstra and Mullin were based on previo......
  • People v. Manson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 1976
    ...supra, p. 562, 234 P.2d p. 258; see also, People v. Steccone (1950) 36 Cal.2d 234, 237--238, 223 P.2d 17; People v. Wheeler (1972), 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 307, 100 Cal.Rptr. 198; People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 29 Cal.Rptr. Sometime in 1967 Manson found his way to the Haight-Ashbury ......
  • People v. Breckenridge
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 12, 1975
    ...U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 3072, 37 L.Ed.2d 1044); People v. Doran (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 316, 320, 100 Cal.Rptr. 886; People v. Wheeler (1971) 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 308, 100 Cal.Rptr. 198; and People v. London (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 241, 242, 78 Cal.Rptr. 848. Note People v. Faulkner (1972) 28 Cal.App.3......
  • People v. Bleile, Cr. 22891
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1973
    ...20 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1014, 98 Cal.Rptr. 193; People v. Bustamonte, 270 Cal.App.2d 648, 653, 76 Cal.Rptr. 17; People v. Wheeler, 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 305, 100 Cal.Rptr. 198.) The United States Supreme Court recently adopted the California rule that such a warning is not a sine qua non of a volu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...(6th Dist.1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265 ("I don't have a gun, and if you want, search my car"); People v. Wheeler (2d Dist.1971) 23 Cal.App.3d 290, 304 ("Let's go search my apartment. You can search the [expletive] out of it. I'll even help you."), disapproved on other grounds, People v. ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Wheeler, 4 Cal. 4th 284, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 841 P.2d 938 (1992)—Ch. 1, §4.6.1(2); Ch. 4-B, §2.2.1(2)(b); §3.5.1 People v. Wheeler, 23 Cal. App. 3d 290, 100 Cal. Rptr. 198 (2d Dist. 1971)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(1)(a) People v. Wheelock, 117 Cal. App. 4th 561, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 796 (1st Dist. 2004......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT