People v. Whitt
| Decision Date | 27 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 22049 |
| Citation | 36 Cal.3d 724,205 Cal.Rptr. 810,685 P.2d 1161 |
| Parties | , 685 P.2d 1161 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Edward WHITT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Brian J. O'Neill, Santa Monica, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Myrna K. Greenberg, Shinaan S. Krakowsky and Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian and John K. Van de Kamp, Attys. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay M. Bloom and Steven V. Adler, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an automatic appeal from a judgment imposing a penalty of death under the 1978 death penalty law. (Pen.Code, § 190.1 et seq.; see Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) 1
Two guilt phase issues require review. The first is whether the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion to suppress the statements he made to a jailhouse informant. The second is whether the trial court erred in failing to fully instruct, sua sponte, on the risks involved in juror note-taking. The court concludes that neither issue merits reversal of the guilt verdicts. However, the special circumstance finding contains Carlos(Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862) error, requiring a reversal of this finding.
By information, appellant Charles Edward Whitt was charged with the murder of William McCafferty. A special circumstance was alleged in connection with this count in that the murder was committed while Whitt was engaged in the commission of a robbery in violation of section 211. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i).)
Whitt was also charged with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a) ), and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021).
Before trial, Whitt entered a guilty plea to the ex-felon charge. A jury convicted him of the remaining offenses and found the special circumstance allegation to be true. Following a penalty phase trial, the jury fixed the sentence at death. Thereafter, Whitt's motions for a new trial (§ 1181) and for modification of the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e) ) were denied. This automatic appeal followed. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)
On the evening of July 6, 1980, Whitt drove his pickup truck to Clella Goforth's house in Yucaipa. Ms. Goforth was acquainted with Whitt, but had not seen him in two years. Whitt told Ms. Goforth that he was looking for her business partner, Harold Williams. Whitt explained that he wanted to sell Williams some livestock because Whitt and his wife were separating, and he needed the money to move.
During this conversation, Ms. Goforth was standing inside a pool area enclosed by a masonry wall. Whitt was standing in the driveway outside the wall. They could see each other through the open grillwork along the top of the wall. Ms. Goforth did not notice any indication that Whitt had been drinking. She thought that he was under some stress due to the breakup of his marriage, but his conversation was coherent.
At the end of the conversation, Whitt said, "I'll be back to see Harold." He did not appear to be angry, and he returned to his truck. Suddenly, he turned and fired a shotgun at Ms. Goforth. The shotgun blast hit the wall within an inch of where Ms. Goforth had been standing. Whitt then drove off at a high speed.
Twenty minutes later, he arrived at the Elkhorn General Store in Forest Falls. He bought beer and cigarettes and talked with one of the other two customers in the store. The store clerk, Linda Weisz, did not notice any signs of intoxication. However, one customer thought Whitt appeared irritable, nervous, and possibly under the influence of cocaine or PCP. Whitt left the store before the other two customers.
A few minutes after the departure of these customers, Whitt came back into the store. He pointed a gun at Ms. Weisz and demanded money from the cash register. She handed him approximately $250. As he left, he walked "kind of sideways and backwards," watching Ms. Weisz while he backed out the front door. Almost immediately after Whitt was out the door, Ms. Weisz heard a gunshot. She locked the door and called the store owner. A minute later, she heard a screech of tires.
William McCafferty was found shortly thereafter lying on the ground in front of the store. He died en route to the hospital. The cause of his death was determined to be a shotgun wound to the neck. The sheriff's department was called, and Ms. Weisz gave a description of Whitt. Several neighbors gave a description of his truck, which had been parked in front of the store during the robbery. These descriptions were broadcast over police radio.
Whitt's truck was stopped, and he was arrested. A shotgun was found on the floor of the passenger compartment of his truck. 2 Nearly $250 in cash was taken from him during the booking procedures. A blood test administered at the sheriff's station revealed a blood alcohol level of .10 percent. Testimony indicated that assuming an average burnoff rate, Whitt's blood alcohol level could have been as high as .14 percent at the time of the offense.
At the sheriff's station, Whitt was placed in a cell with Jimmy deLoach. They shared the cell for several weeks. During this period, Whitt allegedly described the crimes to deLoach. At the trial, deLoach recounted that Whitt told him about going to see Harold Williams at Clella Goforth's house. When Ms. Goforth told Whitt that Williams wasn't home, Whitt said, "Well, when he gets back, tell him this." He then shot at Goforth and "didn't know how in the world he missed her."
DeLoach also testified that Whitt had related how he then went to the Elkhorn store to commit a robbery. As Whitt backed out of the store after taking the money, McCafferty called out, "Hey, what are you doing?" Whitt said he "turned around and blew him away." Whitt was afraid that McCafferty could identify him so, according to deLoach, he "had to get out of the area real fast." After travelling about 30 miles in a direction away from Yucaipa, Whitt turned around and came back because he wanted to kill Goforth. The police stopped him en route to her house. At first, Whitt wanted "to shoot it out with them," but he decided he "didn't have a chance."
DeLoach also testified that Whitt said that he was planning to present a defense that he had been drinking beer all day. Alternatively, he was thinking of testifying that McCafferty had grabbed his gun while he was walking out of the store and that the gun had gone off by accident.
The prosecution also presented the testimony of a prison psychiatrist, Dr. Flanagan. Dr. Flanagan was present when a detective interviewed Whitt on the evening following his arrest. He testified that Whitt was alert, observant, gave appropriate answers, and was able to take a "self-serving" position. He thought that Whitt showed no signs of mental illness, and he opined that the manner in which Whitt handled the interview indicated an ability to premeditate and to "choose a course of action."
Whitt presented a diminished capacity defense. He was 31 years old at the time of his trial and had a troubled medical and psychiatric history. He was hospitalized three times during his childhood for a congenital heart problem. In 1971, he was committed to a state mental hospital and remained on antipsychotic medication after his release.
For the three years preceding his arrest, Whitt lived with Sherry S. and her child. For most of that period, they lived in a house which they rented from Whitt's parents. Sherry testified that Whitt's personality began to change early in 1979. He became short-tempered and moody. He talked to himself a great deal. He would accuse Sherry of talking about him behind his back with the neighbors. He drank peppermint schnapps, which caused him to "go into an outrage," forget who he was, and call Sherry names. Other people had also seen him behave violently when he was drunk on peppermint schnapps.
In January 1980, Sherry told him that she would leave if he did not quit drinking and smoking marijuana. He stopped--at least until July--but during that six-month period he showed serious signs of mental disturbance. He was not working, and he frequently fought with his parents about the rent on the house. He would talk to the television, particularly during violent shows, saying things like 3
Whitt talked to himself as well. Sometimes he would go out in the yard and yell that people were talking behind his back, and they "didn't have the guts to face him like a man." Sherry also heard him talk this way in the middle of the night.
Whitt began drinking again on July 2nd, the Wednesday before his arrest. His parents visited that day and noticed him talking to the television set. He became very angry, shouted at them, and accused them of interfering with his life and creating problems between himself and Sherry. He ordered them out of the house. His mother handed Sherry an eviction notice, and the parents left.
By Saturday, July 5th, Sherry let Whitt know that she was planning to leave him. According to Sherry, Whitt was hurt, angry and acted very strangely. He stormed out of the house and did not come back that day. By noon on Sunday, the day of the robbery and shooting, he was drunk on peppermint schnapps. His speech was slurred and his walk impaired. He was still drunk when Sherry saw him on Sunday at 2 p.m. 4
Two other people saw Whitt on Sunday afternoon. Eugene Burke bought some livestock and some tools from him and thought that he was drunk. Lela Downs saw Whitt when he asked her to tell Sherry to send his clothing to him. Ms. Downs thought Whitt was upset and extremely drunk.
In March 1981, psychologist Stephen Lawrence interviewed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sassounian
...did not constitute a violation of any Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant. (See also People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 742-743, 205 Cal.Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161.)20 The defendant objected to the introduction of Exhibit 50 on hearsay grounds. However, this objection was over......
-
People v. Howard
...to solicit any information from defendant. We disagree. The circumstances bear marked similarity to those in People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 205 Cal.Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161. Here, as there, the actions of the informant in an earlier case were unknown to the police. The informant's in......
-
People v. Ghent
...as they were, on defendant's responses to illegal interrogations conducted by those witnesses. (Cf. People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 748, fn. 21, 205 Cal.Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161 [exercise of Miranda rights precludes testimony regarding defendant's mental condition at time of interview......
-
People v. Hovey
...(Id., at p. 459, 106 S.Ct. at p. 2630.) Our court recently considered the scope of the Henry decision in People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 205 Cal.Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161, a case which preceded Kuhlmann. There, we stressed the importance of determining whether the state has created a s......
-
Table of Cases null
...5-C, §5.2.1(1) People v. Whitson, 17 Cal. 4th 229, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 321, 949 P.2d 18 (1998)—Ch. 5-C, §2.2.2(1)(b)[1] People v. Whitt, 36 Cal. 3d 724, 205 Cal. Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161 (1984)—Ch. 5-B, §2.1; C, §2.1.3(2)(b) People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal. 3d 307, 185 Cal. Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 31......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...People v. Berve (1958) 51 Cal.2d 286, 293, overruled on other grounds, People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478; see People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 746 n.16 (if statements had been coerced, they would have been inadmissible regardless of informant's status as private citizen). See "Exce......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...the information, and had not received any promises from law enforcement. Pace, 833 F.2d at 1309-10, 1313; see also People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 745 (cellmate was not agent when police did not actively encourage hope of leniency or make other promises to him). Even assuming an infor......