People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 09 February 1968
• Docket Number: Cr. 13532
• Citation: 66 Cal.Rptr. 95,258 Cal.App.2d 762
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 95

66 Cal.Rptr. 95

258 Cal.App.2d 762

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 13532.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Feb. 9, 1968.

Hearing Denied April 17, 1968.

Raymond A. Garcia, Los Angeles, for appellant by appointment of the Court of Appeal.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller and Jerold A. Prod. Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

Charged with two counts of assault with intent to commit murder (§ 217, Pen.Code) and one count of burglary (§ 459, Pen.Code), defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, Pen.Code), a lesser included offense, and first degree burglary. He appeals from the judgment.

In the morning of March 25, 1966, defendant went to the residence of his divorced wife Jessie and told her he wanted $300; she said she would give him the money and call him that evening. About 10:45 p.m. she telephoned defendant saying she could not give him the $300 because she was paying bills; defendant replied, 'I'm going to kill your black ass,' then hung up. Five minutes later Jessie's doorbell rang; she looked out of the window and saw defendant; she took a gun from her sister, Mrs. Zollicoffer, and picked up the phone, went into the bedroom, dialed the operator and asked for the police but before she could be connected defendant forced the door. He stood with a gun pointed directly at her and fired six times without saying anything to or striking her. Jessie fired six shots in defendant's general direction. Defendant then knocked out Mrs. Zollicoffer by hitting her over the head with the gun. After that he beat Jessie with the gun crushing her skull and breaking a rib and her hand; while beating her he told her, 'I wish I had some more bullets.'

Upon receipt of information over the police radio that there was a disturbance, Deputy Franzlick went to Jessie's residence. He saw Mrs. Zollicoffer on the sidewalk; she had a bump on the head and blood about her face and appeared to be injured; she told him her sister was injured. Inside the apartment Jessie was covered with blood, appeared to be injured, and told him, 'He beat me,' pointing to the bedroom. The deputy looked into the bedroom from the front room and saw defendant lying across the bed on his stomach face down, holding a cloth to his neck; he asked him 'what happened,' and defendant said he had been shot by his wife. The deputy then went into the bedroom; again he asked defendant 'to tell (him) what happened.' Defendant said he had come to try to get $300, rang the doorbell and no one answered; he kicked the door in, drew a gun and then just started firing.

For the defense Harold Green testified that he heard defendant's conversation with Jessie, and defendant made no threat to kill her; defendant stayed in the house a few minutes after the call and laughed and played around with people there; and he never saw a pistol in defendant's suitcase. Defendant testified that Jessie agreed to give him $300; that night she called at 11 o'clock and told him to come over and pick up the money; when he got there he knocked and someone said to come in so he went into the bedroom where he saw his wife with a gun in her hand; before he could say anything his wife shot him, then her sister got the gun and started shooting; he grabbed it and threw it at her, then returned to the bedroom and talked to his wife; he hit her two or three times with his fist but did not have a gun. He told the officer he was shot and was unarmed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting his statement in evidence because when he made it to the officer he had not then been advised of his constitutional rights under People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361, and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and the prosecution failed to show that he was not then accused. At the outset it should be noted that in the trial court defendant interposed no objection to the admissibility of the statement.

A defendant's confession is not admissible if '(1) the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but had begun to focus on a particular suspect, (2) the suspect was in custody, (3) the authorities had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements, (4) the authorities had not effectively informed defendant of his right to counsel or of his absolute right to remain silent, and no evidence establishes that he had waived these rights.' (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353--354, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 179, 398 P.2d 361, 371.) Absent here is any suggestion that defendant was given his constitutional rights under Dorado or that he was advised under Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, that if he did not have funds with which to retain counsel one would be provided for him. Even so defendant's statement is admissible having been made at a time when the accusatory stage had not been reached and defendant was not in custody, and not in response to a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements.

The deputy had gone to the premises to investigate a disturbance, the nature of which he did not know. When he arrived at the scene he was confronted with three wounded persons--Jessie, her sister and defendant. The women were covered with blood and appeared to be seriously injured; blood was on the floor of the living room and defendant, also injured, was face down on the bed holding a cloth to his neck. The deputy had no way of knowing what had occurred, and Jessie and defendant each accused the other of responsibility for the incident. It was his duty as an officer to investigate, and he started his investigation, a general inquiry, with the routine question, 'what happened.' At this time defendant was not under arrest; there is not the slightest evidence in the record that he was in custody or deprived of his freedom of action. At this point the deputy was accusing no one; nor was he, through his single inquiry, 'what happened,' carrying out a process of interrogations in an attempt to elicit incriminating statements from defendant. The sole purpose of his question was to find out what had occurred; it is a justifiable type of routine inquiry designed to determine what actually happened, as a means of commencing an investigation. (People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 328, 46 Cal.Rptr. 515, 405 P.2d 555; People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386, 393, 46 Cal.Rptr. 622, 405 P.2d 862.) In People v. Cotter, the officers knew that Mrs. Buus had been critically injured in her home and, after talking to Mr. Buus, searched out defendant and found him. On the way to the station one of the officers asked defendant what had occurred at the Buus residence; his response was...