Seiterle, In re
| Decision Date | 13 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7507 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 394 P.2d 556 In re David Jacob SEITERLE on Habeas Corpus. |
Earl Klein, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Edward P. O'Brien and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Attys. Gen., William O Mackey, Dist. Atty. (Riverside)And Roland Wilson, Chief Trial Deputy, for respondent.
David Jacob Seiterle and two companions were charged with the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Duvel and with kidnaping for the purpose of robbery with bodily harm. He first pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity but later changed his plea to guilty on each count. The jury fixed his punishment at life imprisonment for the kidnaping offenses and at death for the murders. On appeal the portion of the judgment imposing life imprisonment for kidnaping was modified to read 'without possibility of parole,' and, insofar as the judgment related to the murder counts, it was affirmed as to the issue of guilt but was reversed as to the issue of penalty. (People v. Seiterle (1961) 56 Cal.2d 320, 14 Cal.Rptr. 681, 363 P.2d 913.) A subsequent petition to prevent a retrial on the issue of penalty for the murders was denied by this court with opinion in Seiterle v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 397, 20 Cal.Rptr. 1, 369 P.2d 697 (1962). At the second trial on the question of penalty for the murders the jury fixed the penalty at death, and that judgment was affirmed in People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 31 Cal.Rptr. 67, 381 P.2d 947.
The present petition, which was filed two weeks before the day set for Seiterle's execution, contained allegations not made in any of the prior proceedings. It was alleged, among other things, that a confession he had given to the police was 'forced and illegal' and that his plea of guilty was the result of a threat by Roland Wilson, Deputy District Attorney of Riverside County, to call his wife as a witness at the trial unless he pleaded guilty. We stayed execution of the judgment of death, issued an order to show cause, and appointed the Honorable Clarence L. Kincaid, retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, as referee to take evidence relating to the matters raised by the petition. The referee found that Seiterle's assertions were not true.
We will first summarize briefly the evidence introduced at the penalty trial regarding the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes. Seiterle, then 19 years of age, and two 16-year-old boys, Gentry and O'Hara, were driving about in Seiterle's car. They drank some beer and became intoxicated. During the course of the evening Seiterle suggested 'holding up a house,' and said he knew some people who kept a large amount of money in their home. The evidence was conflicting as to whether Seiterle said it would be necessary to kill the victims because they would recognize him. There was also considerable conflict in the evidence as to what occurred in the house. According to Seiterle, he did not intend any harm to the Duvels other than robbery and it was Gentry who killed both of them. Gentry's testimony was to the effect that Seiterle intended the killings and that, although Gentry stabbed both victims, Seiterle had previously choked Mrs. Duvel. An autopsy established that Mrs. Duvel probably would have died as a result of strangulation if she had not been stabbed.
The evidence at the reference hearing showed that on the evening of August 17, 1960, about a week after the murders, an officer who had been told that Seiterle was wanted for questioning in connection with the crimes, saw him in a bus depot and asked him to come to the police station to answer some questions. Seiterle went with the officer to the police station, where he was questioned by several officers and Mr. Wilson until about 1:30 a. m. on August 18. He was not informed of his right to counsel or of his right to keep silent and was not told that anything he said could be used against him.
By a tape recording made of the interrogation on this occasion and by testimony of the interrogating officers it was shown that throughout the questioning Seiterle claimed he was innocent and gave various false stories as to his whereabouts on the night the crimes were committed. At one point he said that he had been at home with his wife, and he was permitted to make a monitored telephone call to her during which he sought unsuccessfully to have her verify that he had been at home. Relatively early in the interrogation, Seiterle started making statements with respect to an attorney. He said in response to a question, 'I want to talk to my lawyer before I say anything else.' Mr. Wilson and two officers who were present made no comment with respect to this statement but continued the questioning, during which Seiterle made several statements such as, He asked whether an attorney named John Hughes was a criminal lawyer, and Mr. Wilson replied,
About the time the questioning was concluded in the early morning of August 18, a policeman telephoned Seiterle's parole officer, saying that Seiterle was probably involved in the Duvel murders, and the parole officer informed the caller that Seiterle had violated his parole by getting married and changing his residence and job without permission. Mr. Wilson then requested and obtained authority to hold Seiterle in custody as a parole violator 'pending further investigation of his possible connection with the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Duvel.' Seiterle was booked at 2:25 a. m. on a charge of violating parole.
During the daytime on August 18 Seiterle spent several hours in the 'day room' at the jail, where there were recreational facilities and he was free to mingle with other inmates. According to the uncontradicted testimony of his wife, she attempted to visit him on August 18 but was told that Saturdays were visiting days and that she could not see him until the following Saturday, August 20. There was also uncontradicted testimony of Seiterle that in the evening of August 18 he attempted to send a letter to his wife but that it was returned to him by a trusty who said that an officer directed him to return it.
Starting about midnight on August 18, Seiterle was questioned again and a tape recording of that interrogation session shows that he immediately began to inquire as to what his wife said to the officers during the day and that the officers, after urging him to 'talk,' stated several times that his wife was 'pretty disgusted.' (The wife denied having indicated such an attitude to the officers.) Seiterle asked whether she had said anything about a separation or a divorce, and the officers replied that she had not. He continued to claim that he was innocent. The police informed him that Gentry and O'Hara had made statements that day admitting their participation in the crimes and implicating him as primarily responsible. Shortly thereafter, within about an hour and a half of the commencement of the interrogation session, Seiterle began to acknowledge his presence in the Duvel home on the night in question, stating, When the police made several statements suggesting that Seiterle was the one who had stabbed the Duvels, he asked, 'What if I can prove it wasn't me that used the blade,' and he subsequently made repeated remarks reflecting concern that he would be viewed as the stabber. After giving a verbal account of what had occurred, he wrote a four-page confession, stating, among other things, that Gentry had stabbed the Duvels. In the course of writing he remarked, * * *'
Before the confession was signed, an officer called Seiterle's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spencer
...People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361.)3 We recognized as much in In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657, 39 Cal.Rptr. 716, 720, 394 P.2d 556, 569, when we found it necessary to determine whether 'the existence of (a confession obtained in violation o......
-
People v. Varnum
...42 Cal.Rptr. 583, 399 P.2d 39; In re Lopez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 368, 382--383, 42 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380; In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 658, 39 Cal.Rptr. 716, 394 P.2d 556; In re Imbler (1964) 61 Cal.2d 556, 557--558, 39 Cal.Rptr. 375, 393 P.2d 687; People v. Treloar (1964) 61 Cal.2......
-
Gardella v. Field
...fn. 1, 56 Cal.Rptr. 375 (1967). (2) E. g., In Re Poe, 65 Cal.2d 25, 51 Cal.Rptr. 896, 415 P.2d 784 (1966); In Re Seiterle, 61 Cal.2d 651, 39 Cal. Rptr. 716, 394 P.2d 556 (1964). (3) E. g., In Re Streeter, 66 Cal.2d 47, 56 Cal.Rptr. 824, 423 P.2d 976 (1967); In Re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 42 Ca......
-
People v. Massie
...as well as his death penalty, if an inadmissible confession had impelled his plea of guilty. (See, e.g., In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657, 39 Cal.Rptr. 716, 394 P.2d 556; cf. People v. Spencer (1967) 66 A.C. 151, 157 fn. 3, 57 Cal.Rptr. 163, 424 P.2d 715.)3 We explain below that the......