People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 January 1980
• Docket Number: Cr. 3578
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Carl WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 830

161 Cal.Rptr. 830

101 Cal.App.3d 711

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Carl WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3578.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Jan. 31, 1980.

As Modified Feb. 28, 1980.

Craig H. Anderson, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Simrin & Moloughney and Stanley Simrin, Bakersfield, for defendant and appellant

Evelle J. Younger and George Deukmejian, Attys. Gen., Jack R. Winkler and Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert D. Marshall, Garrett Beaumont and Karen Ziskind, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

GEO. A. BROWN, Presiding Justice.

Appellant, William Carl Williams, was convicted of conspiring to commit first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 182, 187, 189) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The jury failed to agree on a charge of attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664, 187).

On this appeal appellant argues that there was insufficient corroborating evidence to support the accomplice's testimony, that there were errors in refusing to give and giving of instructions, and that the sentence of life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first degree murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

THE FACTS

On May 25, 1977, appellant was informed by his estranged wife that their daughter had been molested. She told him that Garlin Kelley was the person who had molested their daughter. After receiving this news appellant said he was going to kill Kelley. Appellant decided to build a remote control bomb and have Elva Matthews, his girl friend's brother, place the bomb in Kelley's truck. Matthews agreed to help appellant after appellant told Matthews to forget about certain money which was owed to appellant. The parties stipulated that appellant's daughter had been molested by Garlin Kelley.

On May 28, 1977, appellant and his girl friend, Cindy Duffle, went to the B & F Train Shop in Bakersfield. Appellant purchased a remote control device for the bomb. The remote control device was a "Futaba" model No. FP-2CA. The next day appellant returned to the same shop and purchased a model boat with a Servo-Motor inside. Appellant removed the Servo-Motor for use in the construction of a bomb. He reportedly told Cindy that his son's birthday would provide a good cover story for these purchases.

Kent Partian, a friend of appellant's, testified that in May 1977 appellant telephoned him and asked if he could procure blasting caps or other explosives for him. Appellant said he wanted them for personal reasons and mentioned that his daughter had been molested. Appellant also went to visit Kent Partian to ask for blasting caps or explosives. Partian refused to give him any.

At appellant's request Cindy Duffle bought gunpowder at a local sporting goods store. She also filed a false burglary report stating that the items which had been purchased over the last few days had been stolen.

Appellant used the above items to build a bomb. He removed the tags on the items while doing so. After completing the bomb he showed it to Miss Duffle and to Mr. Matthews. He demonstrated how the bomb would work with the remote control device.

Between 11 p. m. on May 30 and the early morning hours of May 31 Elva Matthews, pursuant to appellant's instructions, placed the pipe bomb on the truck, set the bomb for detonation and installed a wire antenna so the remote control device could control and activate the bomb.

Appellant and Matthews met at J's Coffee Shop after the bomb had been placed on the truck. They then returned to appellant's house. Upon returning to appellant's house Cindy Duffle was picked up as were bags of luggage which she had packed in preparation to leave after the bomb was exploded. Appellant and his accomplices then returned to Garlin Kelley's apartment.

After one false start when appellant and his accomplices followed the wrong man, the police arrived at the scene. The plan had been discovered and the police came to search Kelley's truck for the bomb.

Upon seeing the police, appellant and Cindy Duffle fled, driving toward Santa Maria. Somewhere southwest of Bakersfield the remote control device was thrown from the car. Apparently, appellant then decided to go back to Bakersfield. He told Miss Duffle not to say anything if contacted by the police.

The search of Garlin Kelley's truck revealed a pipe bomb and wire antenna. The bomb was described as being workable and lethal. A search of appellant's apartment, pursuant to a search warrant, turned up a remote control ship with its controls missing.

Appellant also told a next-door neighbor that he was not a mad bomber, but if he had attempted to kill Garlin Kelley he would have done so because Kelley molested his daughter. The comment to the next-door neighbor was made in response to a newspaper article which appeared in the Bakersfield Californian.

DISCUSSION

Cindy Duffle and Elva Matthews testified for the prosecution under grants of immunity. Appellant argues that their testimony was not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to connect him with the commission of the crime. (See Pen.Code, § 1111.)

In determining whether sufficient corroborating evidence has been produced the test is:

"The evidence need not corroborate the accomplice as to every fact to which he testifies but is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth; it must tend to implicate the defendant and therefore must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the crime but it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense charged." (People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 257, 324 P.2d 556, 562.)

Applying the test to the facts here, the corroborating testimony was superabundant. It included appellant's testimony that he wanted to kill Kelley when he learned that Kelley had molested his daughter. Kent Partian testified that appellant asked for blasting caps and other explosives. Partian also testified that appellant mentioned his daughter had recently been molested and he needed the explosives for personal reasons. Appellant and Cindy Duffle purchased at separate times a remote control device and a motor to be operated by the device. A remote control bomb was found in Garlin Kelley's truck. Appellant left town shortly after the bomb was discovered. The bomb which was found in Garlin Kelley's truck contained parts identical to those which appellant had purchased. A short time after the incident appellant told a next door neighbor that had he committed the crime it would be justified because Garlin Kelley had molested his daughter.

Appellant next contends that the court erred in refusing to give a special instruction on corroboration offered by him.

The court gave standard CALJIC No. 3.12. ¹ The special instructions requested provided:

"Evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice's testimony only if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth."

"There is insufficient corroboration if it requires aid from the testimony of the witness to be corroborated in order to connect the defendant to the crime."

"In determining whether or not such remaining evidence connects the defendant to the offense charged, you are instructed that evidence that merely shows an association with the actual criminals, or that only casts grave suspicions on the defendant, is not sufficient corroborating evidence."

Appellant does not maintain that CALJIC No. 312 was in error; only that his special instruction was better. Indeed CALJIC No. 312 has been approved for use in cases involving accomplice testimony and corroborative evidence. (See, for example, People v. Jenkins (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 893, 898-899, 110 Cal.Rptr. 465.) Even assuming appellant's instruction was better, there is no requirement that the jury be instructed in the precise language requested by a party. (People v. Jenkins, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d at p. 899, 110 Cal.Rptr. 465.)

Next appellant complains that the court erred in giving a flight instruction (see CALJIC No. 2.52). The argument is meritless. The trial court had a duty to give the instruction because there was abundant evidence of flight tending to show guilt. (Pen.Code, § 1127c; People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 391, 105 Cal.Rptr. 129, 503 P.2d 585.) Both Cindy Duffle and Elva Matthews testified as to appellant's flight upon discovery of the bomb by the police, the bags having been packed beforehand in preparation for leaving.

The last contention is that a sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of conspiracy to commit first degree murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. While the issue poses some difficulty, we have concluded that under the standards adopted by our Supreme Court the penalty is not "so disproportionate to the crime . . . that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity." (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424, 105 Cal.Rptr. 217, 226, 503 P.2d 921, 930; fn. omitted.)

Preliminarily, respondent argues that the challenge to the constitutionality of the penalty is premature in that appellant must wait until the Community Release Board has set his actual term pursuant to Penal Code sections 3040-3046, relying upon People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, 183, 121 Cal.Rptr. 97, 534 P.2d 1001, and People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 193, 121 Cal.Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015. The argument lacks merit. Those cases dealt with indeterminate terms in which the exact terms were to be set by the Adult Authority (now Community Release Board). Here the Community Release Board...