People v. Planagan

Aug. 2, Div. One. Dist., 1944.] No. 3770. Second [Crim. PLANAGAN, JOHN M. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. THE Appellant.

Joseph Scott, and McFarland Howard Ziemann G. L. J. Appellant. for Richards, Kenny, Attorney General, Frank

Robert W. and Deputy General, Respondent. Attorney for

YORK, By presented by P. J.— an the Grand indictment Jury Angeles County, Los defendant was accused of April Dorothy on or about murder of Marie Courtemanehe 21, 1943.

Upon arraignment the cause was transferred of defendant juvenile court proceedings for further court which age years sixteen and ordered found him be under custody of sheriff for suit- to the care committed and and to section 731 of the Welfare detention, pursuant able juvenile de- Thereafter, court found Code. 'said Institutions subject with under proper fit to be dealt not a and fendant Law, the cause was “transferred Court Juvenile general prosecution In 43 for under law.” Department court, defendant entered superior 43 of the Department charged indictment,” in the guilty as plea his of “not charged guilty “not of the offense pleaded that he was further alleged have time that he is was insane because he “ap- Three doctors said unlawful act.” were committed Penal to examine the de- section 1027 Code pointed under' to his sanity report the Court as fendant as to trial, de- cause was called When the mental condition.” plea guilty court, withdrew “not fendant leave of ’’ reason, counsel, by his insanity, for the as stated by reason of defendant “have appointed to examine the three doctors boy sane.” found trial, jury returned a verdict

At the conclusion charged indictment, murder, felony, as guilty of degree. of the second From it to be murder and found entered, was thereafter conviction which judgment of trial, denying his motion for a defendant from the order new appeal. prosecutes judgment of urges that conviction here following reasons: for the

reversed any proof of motive is fatal in this “(1) absence of The purely circumstantial; and the evidence is where all of ease “ is insufficient the verdict (2) Opportunity alone to sustain guilty; “ is in- (3) circumstantial evidence relied herein guilt innocence; and is consistent with consistent with 21, a when Exhibit “(4) Reversible error was committed herein, way knife, in no connected with the crime spring blade evidence; and admitted as “ wholly support ver- (5) insufficient to The evidence guilty; and dict “ admitting evidence (6) error was committed Grievous years occurring six before the date incident of a childhood herein, wholly and charged the crime unconnected herein; and crime

375 “ guilty gross misconduct (7) attorney was The district defendant; and prejudicial to the ’’ 1‘ granted. been (8) for a new should have The motion trial ap- evidence, and because The case is one of circumstantial abridged and there- pellant’s facts is somewhat statement of understanding of the circum- inadequate proper for a fore attending homicide, this court reviewed the stances has tran- pages reporter’s evidence set forth over script, respondent’s summary and finds that brief of the evi- produced dence is a fair statement of the facts as disclosed by the record: Pete, children, Marilyn,

Mrs. Courtemanche her three and child, commonly Dorothy Marie, the deceased who was eight called Doris, years por- had lived in the downstairs tion of Sepulveda the old 751 North home at Palos Verdes city Pedro, Wilming- San located on mesa above the Road, ton-San Pedro directly Angeles across from Los Shipbuilding Corporation. November, father died in The 1942. Mrs. Eva Worden with her children husband and oc- cupied upstairs portion of the house and lived years previous five homicide, being property owned jointly by the two families. -Since the death of Mr. Courte- manche, Mrs. Torrance, working Courtemanche had been leaving home at 7:15 o’clock in morning returning about 5:00 o’clock in evening. Marilyn Courtemanche was employed, also usually left home 12:00 o or 12:30 ’clock returning the afternoon Doris, about 4:30. the deceased years child age, Pete, was twelve brother, her .of fourteen. Planagan family of the father, consisted who was act-

ing Captain of Fire Boat No. 3 Angeles of the Los Fire De- partment Pedro, at San mother, appellant, who was fif- years teen age, 6 feet 3 tall weighed inches pounds, and William, years age. thirteen They lived at 450 Don- ald Street, San Pedro, which was about four-tenths of a mile from the Courtemanche The Flanagans home. had lived there since 1923 and the children of the two played families together and visited each other’s homes. Pete Courtemanche were pretty good year friends until about a before horsing the homicide. always “was around,” get down, get it, would Pete his “arm and twist

376 that,” like something like, or which Pete did not therefore away appellant. stayed One time while Pete was house, appellant in front of his standing playing out put and it to around with a knife Pete’s and back started it, pushing back, fooling against with it hard around Pete’s did not cut him. Pete had not appellant seen at his (Pete’s) for three months prior April 21, 1943, house homicide, during which occurred date the Easter vaca- appellant tion At school Pete seen push- week. had with a hunting knife, with appellant button knife and later a pocket zipper carried his black This leather coat. months was about three before homicide. The blade of hunting length dark knife was about inches with a guard. and or red handle a crossbar The blade was about an it in a appellant inch wide and carried scabbard. Cordero, age, 319 North years

Frank fifteen who lived at Mesa, nearly every day home after went to Courtemanche played together. Appellant used school. He and Pete to Pete’s house. This they go and would come to his home months the murder. went was about three before a boys. appellant Frank seen with bigger had around 4y2 long; inches which was hunting knife with blade about and had sort of a red and black handle sharp one side tip, appellant with an aluminum was carried jacket in of his a leather case. Sometimes zipper pocket side appellant When Frank appellant. Pete to avoid tried go the lot bicycles, they their would across to Pete’s on went go to the front door and appellant would path, whistle for Pete. night, 19, 1943, Mrs. April Monday

On Courtemanche Doris times. Mrs. appellant call several Courtemanche heard window, appellant looked out and saw under- open went to an why him She asked Doris’ bedroom. neath the window of calling he was not appellant said calling Doris and he was going him Pete was Pete. told calling She Doris but was “All home, replied go appellant and for him to bed or three surly. After the first two snarly right,” very there, appellant family lived that the months Courtemanche children. played with the regularly and their home came to time, ap- half. At that and a year for This continued 21, 1943, the date years April before six proximately at her appellant talked with Courtemanche homicide, Mrs. away home and told return. He remained for at years, least when he returned she two noticed that he grown quite eight On other a bit. seven occasions she had sent home and believed she had not seen him year prior question. the time 1943, April 20, morning On around 11:00 o’clock daughter Betty, years age, Mrs. Worden’s thirteen went stayed downstairs to the Courtemanches where she about an half. Appellant sitting hour and a on the couch and Only Doris, knitting. Doris was the three were there. girl, telephone boy murdered call received from a friend appellant thought go and she asked if he she should with this boy park. Appellant said, “Oh, I don’t think so. Why you you go don’t a few more years wait before out with boys?” Appellant ruffled Doris’ hair and when she it, again, friendly mood; combed he ruffled it all in a Doris not being angry doing at him look Appellant it. did not wild-eyed crazy up,” or all “worked as a playful schoolboy schoolgirl. with a day, 20th,

On this April Marilyn same ar- Courtemanche rived home from o’clock, work at Mrs about 4:30 Courte- manche and Pete came in home about 5:45 o’clock the after- Marilyn noon. When appellant came into the house she saw in the front room. there, presence Doris appellant, Marilyn Doris go told that she to work the had next morning instead of the afternoon did day long work, not know probably how she late. would have to She told she get things downtown, Doris wanted her to some darning cotton, morning some and Doris said The next O.K. Marilyn left 8:00 1:00 home at o’clock and returned at about mentioned, o’clock in the afternoon. As hereinbefore it was Easter vacation week. April 21, 1943, homicide,

On at 9:00 day of the about morning, o’clock in Frank Pete Courtemanche and Cor- stayed dero until went to Beach at San Cabrillo Pedro morning around three On that same o’clock that afternoon. ’clock, Blevins, 9:00 o lived Doris asked Mrs. who court Street, Pedro, at 266 Settle if her son Richard San go go ready could got town with her. Richard home, Doris. In returned to Doris went then meantime 9:30 they the Blevins left at 9:15. Around house and morning, appellant or 9:45 that came to the house of Mrs. Frank, Cordero, mother an automobile and called for appellant Frank. She went out and told that Frank was home, gone not at and that he had to the beach with Pete. they gone asked her if had on the bus and she yes, appellant replied, “Well, to which that’s what thought.” they gone told appellant She a few said, “O.K., thanks,” minutes before and and left. morning Stiff, At 10:20 that Mrs. Blevins and Mrs. who lived court, go the same left home to town on the As bus. stopped, got off, being bus Doris Bichard o’clock, end daugh- of the bus line. At 11:00 Mrs. Worden’s ter, Betty, house; saw Doris the white fence in front of the 11:25, morning, Olson, and at Mrs. who lived on the Streets, dog corner of Driefus and Settle saw Doris with her going through Street, two courts to Driefus about a block from going up Doris’ house. Mrs. Olson Street Settle way husband, on her paid to town to meet her no atten- way tion as going, away to which Doris was whether toward her home. children,

Mrs. James, eight years age, Stiff’s and Mela- nee, eight years age, children, play- and some other were ing steps on the at porch the back of their home 266 Settle Street gone while their mother Mrs. Blevins had to town. riding James and Melanee knew and saw his bicycle on through path the sidewalk the court to the leads across the vacant lots to Doris’ home. Melanee stated saw appellant shortly she lunch time it thought before ’clock; was about 11:00 o that she had not had her lunch and get didn’t it until her mother came home. Mrs. Stiff testified she arrived home noon. At o around about 11:30 ’clock day, hang up this same Mrs. Worden came downstairs to morning, some clothes which she had washed that and while going to coming the rear of the she saw appellant house through bicycle. a vacant lot She toward her .house on paid hanging no further up attention to him. After clothes, minutes, which took 15 20 upstairs. she went back At the play- time she came she did not notice the downstairs ing home, the radio the Courtemanche but as she returned upstairs very was loud. The en- playing radio music upstairs trance to the is on of the the south side house.

379 21, April day, 12:10 o’clock on 11:35 and Between one Street, about at 266 Seventh Nolton who lived 1943, Mrs. weeds house, pulling from the Courtemanche block say could not appellant and not notice she did yard, but her 11:30 or not. Between premises her passed whether he Street, McKenzie, lived at Settle who o’clock, Mrs. 12:00 yard, an un- in her heard gardening tools looking for while looked toward voice she laugh of a feminine usual McKenzie saw one. Mrs. house but no Courtemanche knew the family, because she in the Courtemanche interested Robert later, she saw 20 or 30 minutes About mother worked. looking standing porch toward on the Courtemanche appellant. house. did not see She Courtemanche twenty-seven-year-old brother Courtemanche, the Robert Avenue, Wilmington, arrived Doris, at 722 Gulf who lived and two children home with wife at the Courtemanche make wire to o’clock, getting some purpose 12:28 for the looked porch, the front stepped up He onto rabbit hutches. saw front of the house and through the main window the He living lying in of the divan room. body front unlocked, house, being immediately the door entered the police. an and the Before telephoned for ambulance room, came into the police arrived, his wife and oldest son He did Mrs. Worden’s. upstairs and his wife went covering over any part not think he lifted or removed of the examined ten minutes and body. police came in about body. the officers went purse lying When beside it sure through was then purse, Robert Courtemanche sister, Doris; up to that time he who was his sure disarranged; Nothing in the radio was on was. the room was burning. inaudible, gas heater was Bureau, with Officer Gannon of the San Pedro Detective home between Elliott, Lieutenant at the arrived Courtemanche day homicide, at which ’clock, 12:35 and 12:40 o on the Officer Gan- police time two uniformed officers were there. body non saw a under a blanket near the divan about lying front a wrench feet from the door. There was identi- This was body left of the near the left heel. wrench the he had used Pete as one of wrenches fied Courtemanche day repairing bicycle previous his the his bedroom is next to room which which had left on the dresser his spot noticed of blood about the front room. Officer Gannon 12 inches diameter on cushion on the south side of the extending over to the divan second cushion. There was a the back of the spot smaller on divan near the cushion which long 2y2 about 4 inches was inches wide. There was a puddle right-hand cushions, of blood between the two one directly arm, on considerable blood on breasts A loose leaf telephone the victim. of the book with num- pocketbook on it bers and a brown leather partially were un- body. der the Wilmoth, Receiving Hospital Surgeon Pedro,

Dr. at San arrived at approximately Courtemanche home 1:00 cursory o’clock. He made a examination of body, covered, was and discovered that death had occurred before arrival. There on girl was blood the neck of on parts body, other as well as on the divan. The blood liquid, having coagulated. more or less completely In opinion girl had died within an hour before he body, examined the beginning which was get a little bit rigor stiff with mortis. He body did not take the off cover and made no further Upon examination of it. cross-exami- nation, Dr. Wilmoth say admitted he not prepared that death had not occurred an hour and a half before his arrival. day

theOn homicide, Ray Pinker, forensic chemist Angeles Department, Los Police went to the Courte- manche home and removed the couch body cover from the the presence of several detectives. He found there awas large blood stain in the center of the cover where it was in contact with the body through which stain had soaked cover; that wet, were still having stains the blood not thoroughly dried. This witness also saw the wrench which was lying on the floor to the left of body. Due to its soiled and rough surface, the finger- wrench did not retain prints any kind. Mr. Pinker examined the and ceil- walls ing of the room to determine whether or not blood contamination none, and found at least none that could be seen eye. with the naked

Dr. Thienes, Clinton witness, called the defense aas found human on blood lamp, doorpost shade of a floor on a about or 6 feet casing above the floor and wood of an archway 5 or 6 feet above the floor.

The autopsy performed body of Doris showed four

381 on superficial stab wounds penetrating stab wounds two in the On four wounds back. body front her stab of wounds, of which three left side of her head were seven scalp, depressed but not to the resulted lacerations contused and The brain tissue was fractures the skull. stab hemorrhage. of death was there was The cause subdural of the depressed fractures compound of the heart and wound into of the fitted The found at the scene crime skull. wrench The stab wounds depressed fracture areas the skull. hunting size by could have knife about the been caused maximum, near seven-eighths its of an inch an inch at on handle, side the other. sharp on one and rounded no hymen type intact. There was small and was was of girl. of any evidence attack this sexual Ray the time Pinker, chemist, present forensic at by autopsy by made performed Dr. Tests were Webb. by him and Dr. having portions Webb various the wrench in an juxtaposition penetrations close skull effort have to discover whether or not the instrument could been responsible injuries for the sustained the victim. They penetrations peculiarity discovered that the of the the skull scalp and the wounds in matched the curved portions of wrench, namely, jaw end of the upper this They wrench. portion found that the was the portion curved that fitted in two Mr. exactly places. into the skull fracture Pinker body that the had been caused observed wounds sharp instrument, wide, inch similar approximately one to a knife blade. occurred, April 22,

On day 1943 the homicide after the appellant’s father, Planagan, Sr., John at the office of called Department Chief Angeles Alderson of the Los Fire at St., Angeles, So. Hill Los his of cer- seek advice because things tain in- Planagan, his son after had told Mr. him. troducing son, accompanied him, his Aider- who asked Chief son if he had read about the The chief murder San Pedro. having newspaper recalled seen to that effect headlines boy way told the help there was could him or no he him spoke advise his father unless the truth and told just it Planagan what all stated he was about. Mr. vacation, week, had being paint- Easter and that he been day ing his had house; helping; that his son that on the been painted at all or had murder son had either of the morn- portion in the stopped painting sometime middle working boy from ing; that he had released the boy (appel- fit. The play was then free or do what he saw lant) story two of picked up then and stated boy boy Pete, playmates, a named Frankie and named child, being planned latter the brother the deceased go swimming waterfront, and that he wanted down on the home, it them due had not been go to with to the work morning possible go; particular when try done, thought there was no work to be he he would more got go swimming them; them to with that he on Ms to catch bicycle utility and he house mother him a gave left the his bill, gas bill, light pay, to either the bill or the water bill home; to pay and told him he came that he went to before learned from Frankie’s mother the home of Frankie and (Mrs. Cordero) gone swimming with Pete that Frankie had (Courtemanche); (appellant) possibly that he stated that go them; boys he catch house and could Pete’s bicycle he his from Frankie’s to Pete’s house that rode house lots; bicycle up against across the side put vacant that he his Pete; (Courtemanche) called for that there house and lady upstairs (Mrs. Worden); was a that she came who lived clothing the line in hang down with a basket out on to backyard; speak speak that did not her and she did not him; couple that for of times one he called Pete a and no appeared; through that the window on the he then looked object appeared side of the house and an on divan which saw covered; protruding from it he saw foot an curiosity him position odd which aroused his and made feel something wrong; that there was that he to the front went answered; rang and one that he tried the doorbell no unfastened, door which then door and opened entered the room. Alderson if that Chief asked thing do, was not his father an unusual volunteered the information they possibly had known one another for eight ten years; or that the visited back and forth children homes; on'e another’s from Pete’s home ran people that the through they tots, his house and had since were little Planagan through Ap- Pete’s house. children ran pellant him told Chief Alderson that it was not unusual house, walk into picking up Courtemanche divan; went to the story point, he that he from that or throw body object a blanket that the was covered with very it was kind; coverlet and of some that he raised the bloody; running it and the dripping blood from Aider- in front of him. Chief body exposed child's boy boy just son asked him and the to tell what saw together held his hands held his head down close side, closing eyes, giving impres- shook it from side to memory sion that he he had wanted erase what seen. mo- boy compose Chief Alderson let the himself for a Ap- ment and then him happened. asked to state what had pellant stated, “Well, gone screwy. I I don’t know. must have I don’t know what I I did. ... radio was recall playing, I off, and intended I to shut the radio and went over radio, not, but whether I shut it I off or don’t know. . . I. don’t it, get know what made me do but wanted to out. I get wanted to away from boy there.” The said he outside, got went bicycle on his away. and started to ride Chief Alderson anyone asked him whether him saw leave the boy house and the lady (Mrs. Nolton) said that there was a across street, possibly two-thirds of a block or a block down the street who he was sure saw him as he left on his bicycle; that he her knew and she him, knew but she didn’t get along particularly well just with the kids and so he rode by; positive that he was that she looked at saw and him; that he rode bicycle his for several blocks toward San Pedro; upset that he felt sick go and and home; wanted to home, that he turned and went went in the to his house and room, down, own sat and felt sick to his stomach and nervous and upset; that he did not what doing; he was know that his mother came and him asked what was the matter and he gave answer; him, her no that she told “You are ill or there something wrong you. with You better down on lie bed. sick”; lay You are that he down on the bed for awhile bad; and still felt got that he felt that if he out of and there something went somewhere better, and did he would feel so played he went one of game to the schools and a or two or handball; three of that he back again; came home that his dinner; mother served home; that his father was not that he dinner; couldn’t eat his that his mother attempted to make him eat but he had that appetite; thing no this was in front there, everytime thought it, why him and he about it made sick, moving

him so he decided that if he went to picture a through movie, show, maybe get sat a that would his mind better, off it he and he would feel so went to a movie, came Planagan home and went to bed. Mr. picked up story and told Alderson that Chief he came home about him eight o’clock at which time his wife told there was some- thing wrong with Jack. “He came rushing today in the house and his went in room. He was upset sick and him and made lie and then he down went and came and back wouldn’t any gone eat dinner and he has to a movie. He talk. won’t ” He won’t tell me what is the matter with him. So Mr. Plana- gan that the boy decided when question came home he would him; that Planagan boy Mr. stated that when he came home went to his room and bed; Planagan Mr. that was puzzled son; approach how to that there had been a murder in the neighborhood; boy manner, that the had acted an odd had refused to tell wrong him, his mother what was he and was a approach boy therefore little reluctant question him; boy boy a good given had been and had never him any trouble; thing it was a terrible for father to walk up question to his begin son and him as to whether or not he murder; had been in a postponed talking involved that he lay boy to the down himself but was unable sleep, be- nervous, crying they put came mother was in rather night getting bad much, any, without if sleep; went he boy’s room waking once or twice with the intention of just but did not do so because he approach lacked thing bring up discussion, this how he did exam- but boy’s clothing. ine the Planagan Alderson Mr. if Chief asked boy clothing worn if time, had the same all of any change it, made clothing effort to hide Planagan boy no, clothing Mr. that the wore the same had, jacket that he some old and shirt trousers leather in which he had been painting and which there were a paint stains, considerable number of that he had worn court, same to the handball again; the movies and home (the father) posi- had examined the and was clothing tive whether there were bloodstains on because of paint thing another, imagined and one rather places he could detect or two some indication of blood one upset mother; him and the which rather morning when boy (the father) the arose and he approached boy came the him he to and told wanted know what was the matter with explain him to him and wanted actions previous his on the boy day; talk, that the was a bit hesitant to but upon insist- story (the ence boy related the same to him father) which just he had related to Chief Alderson in presence.

Chief the boy any Alderson asked if he ever difficulty had in school and both he and his father said not; he had that the boy always along had gotten well with his lessons and never had trouble with the other children or anything of that kind at all. The father then asked Chief for his Alderson advice and was told the chief that only thing there was one to police do and that was to talk to officers and have the story boy them; tell the to boy’s if story truth, he could be of material police officers; assistance to the presence that his at the scene of eventually the crime would discovered, boy’s and that if story true, was not why duty then it was the report father’s police to anyway. to boy exactly stated that was wanted; what he that he get wanted to this off his mind get thing up. cleared entirely agreeable The father was and the chief told him he police department would call the and ask them to send someone over. Chief Horrall police department was at lunch and Alderson talked Captain Harrison, Chief who Inspector referred him to Bruce Clark. Chief Alderson told the latter that he would like person- come to his office ally; that had he some information in connection with case which he did not wish to disclose over In telephone. very Inspector few minutes Clark came to Alderson’s Chief office inspector introduced the Planagan both Mr. outlining briefly and his son, boy what the had told In- him. spector Clark, questioning boy after making some notes, said that thing go one do: police department get in making touch with the officers investigation them, and tell story boy go let the with the officers to the house where the murder had occurred inquired and reconstruct what had inspector done. The if boy’s wearing clothes were available. He was not previous day, Planagan clothes he worn the told had and Mr. inspector available; the clothes were been home and he could them. With that disturbed; have were Alderson’s office. they left Chief hunting if knife appellant asked he had a Inspector Clark “Yes, spoke I stated, His father boy said he had. and the morning, boy and the told me this the knife this him about knife had been stolen from him about a week morning the that that Clark asked father if was previously.” Inspector it, said, “Yes, morn- and he time he had heard of the first Inspector missing.” time knew the knife was ing was the first that boy wearing if clothes asked the he was same Clark day before, father that he wearing on the and the he was day worn the leather not, previous that on the he had the father if he had observed jacket. Inspector asked Clark said, “Yes, there was jacket on the and the father blood jacket.” sleeve, sleeve the leather a of blood on his smear Inspector City Hall and Clark The three of them walked to the squad to talk to investigators the homicide in the called son. the father and investigating officers, told Hurst,

Officer one of the brought son to Planagan had his Mr. Inspector Clark that brought boy (Clark) had Alderson’s office and he Chief Hall, boy visited City and that the and his father to the body day and found the home on the before Courtemanehe appellant girl. questioned murdered Officer Hurst the- chemist, Captain Easmussen and the forensic presence Planagan, father, Eay Officer Hurst said to the Mr. Pinker. now, Planagan, boy Mr. Sr., to talk to the “We would like Planagan replied, “No, I would you stay Mr. you can if like.” ’’ go hall, I feel a bit nervous. Officer Hurst rather out going him of the occasion of appellant asked to tell day. previous Appellant stated home Courtemanehe on bicycle noon, bicycle parked his that he rode there on his about front door and called at the rear of the house and went got in the window Pete; response he no so he looked that something floor; he into the house and saw on the went body on floor covered the front door and noticed from under the blanket, protruding with a with one foot foot; sandal on the that he heard blanket and a white in; the corner of playing when he went he lifted radio body and saw the of Doris Courtemanehe the blanket got bicycle out”; that he that he then “blacked eventually home and took a rode toward reached town town, paid bills, day he went some later nap; games three or four of handball with his back, played came night. Officer Hurst asked a show and went to brother when he went to Courtemanche Mm he was dressed how jacket, pair in a leather appellant stated black home, Officer Hurst asked him where some sandals. of cords and clothing stated it at his home. appellant was and parents if notified his appellant Hurst then asked he Officer notify that he did not them he had seen and stated what appellant morning the 22nd. Officer Hurst asked until the floor, thought if, body he had found the after help, that he or call for stated call doctor appellant asked the did not. Officer Hurst if he was owner he stated that he owned three but had lost of knives and one, as, one, pocket and described these knives knife with a a hunting spring back and one knife. stated he a hunting the owned knife for about two months and carried it to pocket, school his coat and that the reason he carried hunting the knife to because school was he had have a spring-back appellant knife. Officer if Hurst asked he had notified his folks or told anybody else that he had lost his appellant knife stated that he had not.

Immediately following 22, on April 1943, this conversation (the day following homicide,) Ray the Officer Hurst and Pinker appellant by took automobile to the San Pedro Police Station, having previously telephoned Officer Hurst leaving was San Pedro and that he had They by Captain him. were met the San Pedro Station Rasmussen, Elliott, Sergeant Lieutenant Gannon and Officer Hargett of Ray Pinker, the San Pedro Detective Bureau. Captain Rasmussen and two detectives from the said bureau residence, appellant’s they went to where were met Mr. Planagan, appellant’s parents. and Mrs. The black leather jacket hanging of by appellant worn was on the back a chair in the room and this turned over Mr. Pinker. living Planagan corduroy pair He also received from Mrs. a of trousers, pair shoes, pair a and also a white shirt and shorts, garments Planagan white both of which latter Mrs. evening said she had washed the before. found No blood was jacket on the shoes. Mr. Pinker took the leather crime investigation laboratory analyzed and examined and certain gar- the left portion on it. On front appearing

stains zipper near the near the ment, area down bottom an spatter stains, Pinker small garment, found sixteen Mr. the analyzed to be stains smears, which bloodstains. These garment. jacket the exterior of Because were on the red, difficult these very the blood it is to see in color and black Pinker eye, and for reason Mr. the naked stains with of red particular these stains with bits the location of marked On left there was red streak. cellophane paper. sleeve forty tiny micro- this streak he found excess of Inside of spatters. On outside of left sleeve scopical dried blood - came as a result of contact with there were smears which spatters bloody object brushing and the over of before dry. opportunity thoroughly One smear spatters had an pronounced bright light, heavy and such as was so as a haze over the could be seen reddish black daylight, background. spatters larger or six somewhat There were five right tiny spatters. than On cuff of sleeve the other covering jacket, Pinker found smears of blood Mr. jacket which into surface of the leather had soaked the thread of this stitching particular of the coat at sleeve. Inside high extending as inside up sleeve and three inches lining and soaked into he found stains of of the sleeve zipper stains human There blood. These were of blood. was a pocket appearing portion on the lefthand side of the front pocket, jacket. lining, On inside of this on the blue eight spots spot Mr. Pinker found human blood. One easily quite large eye. and could be seen with the He naked say spots could whether these smears or spatters not were simply spots the fact that the contact because was fabric consequently original shape absorbent character and disappeared, of the stain had and had been absorbed into spray Spatters microscopic tiny drops fabric. mean a fine flying through contacting the air and blood a nonabsorbent Pinker found human surface. Mr. blood on the trousers over right pocket right pocket. side and over the rear Mrs. Flanagan gave indicated that the trousers she Mr. Pinker thought (appellant) wearing. were the she Jack had ones been pair to Mr. corduroy described Pinker a vicinity a tear in trousers with left knee which tear present. There that was contamination of blood inside determine analyze not did Mr. Pinker blood tear, which human blood. it was or not whether 22nd, day April (the after afternoon of the late In had a conversation with Gannon occurred,) Officer homicide Hargett. Appellant was of Officer presence in the appellant figured he the Courtemanche how Gannon by Officer asked working on that he had been replied appellant case to which during Easter vacation house around the helping roof, 11:30 o’clock sometime around brother; that with his stomach; his that very queer feeling he had a 21st, April and took a roof, in the house off the went down he crawled bicycle and went over Courtemanche bath, got on his and route took appellant the he asked Gannon house. Officer bicycle cut; he left his that he took a short garage passing and in against the Courtemanche out he Worden saw Mrs. house on the south side garage to the around the hanging clothing; that he went up back Pete; thought he that he porch and called side, up on the walking he toward three two or called timesewhile the front door he called door, when he reached front receiving answer, he looked into the small side win- again; no somebody blanket; and saw under a adjoining the door dow calling sticking so, foot out and instead a white that he saw in; re- he did not the door and went again, opened he not; picked up dog was there or he member whether blanket, it, some looked under saw blood the corner of Doris; picked up the blanket he knew it was flip- it; stomach turned dropped so and his inches or closing it; radio out the front door that the ; that he went flop gas heater not remember whether the that he did playing; bicycle going got on his instead of off; that he was on or come, he went to Settle path by which he had back over standing porch woman on her Settle Street; that he saw a seen; her stop to tell what he had Street; that he did Worden; route tell Mrs. that he took this different he did not sick up,” gestured like he was he was all “balled because stomach; got and brother that when he home his mother to his wrong there; that his mother asked what was were grade at First Mesa going that in a small told her down bicycle; riding that he did not he struck woman while might give name; upset; that was that there woman clothing; on his been some blood that he removed his have bed, leaving jacket chair, his trousers and went to nap minutes; took or fifteen got up for about ten that he a house; that and walked around the his brother was still work- ing "place; shortly about the that his thereafter mother asked go creamery get milk; to take the car and some there; that he and his brother down drove he did not that tell his had mother what seen at the Courtemanche house very good; returning because he didn’t feel that after home milk, High with the he and his brother went Barton games played School and four of handball and then returned dinner; they home and had took the newspaper local Pedro; San that after dinner his mother mentioned about what she read in the newspaper had and stated she known had Doris and remarked what thing was; a terrible that he didn’t tell his mother that he had been the Courtemanche home that noon very because he good; didn’t feel that after dinner he and his Bill brother went the Barton Hills Thea- tre and saw Joe E. Brown in comic; way neither to or the theater did he tell his«brother anything it; about comedy; he liked the that after the show he brother went bed; home and went morning that the next his father asked him he anything if had seen hap- of what pened to Courtemanche, Doris yes; he said that his father asked him if he was over at noon, yes, and he said that was when he told his it; father what he knew about his father decided take him to see Chief Alderson. Officer Gannon asked knife, if he had a and appellant said yes he had had three knives; or four hunting that he had had a knife but had lost it Thursday either or Friday before Easter week; that he had playing been basketball at school and had left it jacket his leather gloves with his fur lined and lost them; that gloves the knife and jacket were when got back; that he had spring-blade knife with about three one-quarter inch blade that he used around the house for work; different that the hunting knife had about a three and one-half inch blade with a vari-colored handle and leather scabbard with a half-inch strap around the top; that he car- ried just it; the knife have he had never with it; trouble that he carried knife zipper pocket of his jacket leather just and it fitted in there nicely, snugly; bought previously knife about three months that he the (a Roy and Pacific Avenue in San Pedro Hook on Seventh merchant). Appellant person stated that no other had worn jacket he his except his on one occasion when let leather brother wear it from school. 22nd, Planagan in police April

At the station on Mrs. the presence home from appellant of stated when Jack came suffering the house he was from shock. Officer Courtemanehe just by Gannon asked her what she meant shock and she said it must have the he seen over been shock what had there. Officer “Well, playing Gannon said to her: handball and going enjoying comics, to not shows and the that is an indica- tion “I know, boy of shock is it?” She said: don’t the very badly Planagan was shocked.” told Officer Mrs. also given Gannon that morning she had Jack some bills that to pay and pay them; supposed that he didn’t he was go afternoon; pay down later the that he didn’t them in morning. Hargett’s testimony

Officer relative to this conversation with appellant by was substance the same as testified Officer Gannon, except Hargett Officer appellant testified that story stated that hitting he told his mother of a woman bicycle with falsehood, was a and that had he told his story mother that so she would not worry his condition. about Hargett Officer appellant asked were, who his friends appellant stated that usually he ran around with Pete Courte- manehe and Farnk appellant Cordero. He asked if he knew they where day were appellant homicide and early morning said that in the gone he Mrs. had Cordero’s by home told gone was her Frank that Pete and had ’clock; beach about 9 o way that at this time he was on his ferry landing where he give was to meet his father to him key Hargett to their automobile. appel- Officer asked if thought lant he picking up the blanket in the manner stated splashed had jacket, blood on appellant stranger things said happened. had April 23, 1943, On Ray forensic chemist Pinker had con- versation appellant with jail, in the San at Pedro which de- tective Gannon present jailer present and a part the time. Pinker Mr. had with him appellant’s jacket leather which was identified appellant. Mr. Pinker appellant asked not, of the fact that there was view contamina-

whether jacket, he would to look at a couple like tion of blood they the scene of it, crime as found photographs covering body, the blanket to see whether particular out him the corner of the pick could blanket lifted in order to view he had the sandals victim. like to see photographs. would Mr. copies photographs, some People’s Pinker had Exhibits 13b, appellant. Appellant which he showed looked 13a photo- pointed then on one photographs spot to a said, picked up.” “This is the corner that I graph and It lying on approximately floor the corner of blanket right hand of the There was a small foot from the victim. one right Mr. hand and the blanket. Pinker space between that that corner of the particular blanket told it; fact, four none of the corners no blood contamination on blood; that was contaminated detective the blanket of there, only all not himself, Hurst and and of them lieutenant but the blanket from that corner of the blanket removed lifted body any over of body and turned the without them be- the to coming appel- with blood. Pinker said contaminated Mr. your “Now, explanation appearing is it blood lant, that lifting of from jacket on came result contamination as blanket?”, He and said that it was. said to appellant “Jack, something peculiar there is about stains appellant, jacket, not from on can blood be identified this stain identifying an examination of the stains but also place. took means or manner contamination words, Jack, appearance is a in the In other difference spattered Now, stain stain. there is a from a smear and a ’’ A pen of ink. bottle of ink and a set bottle were before them. ink piece poured paper of the onto a of and Mr. Pinker some pool pool, dipped finger into the a small then and made finger piece paper of wiped and another and smeared being type of that to a smear stain. designated appellant ink, pen dipped pen it in held the Then took the ink flicked up piece paper drop above a a from splatter type pen paper on the and showed him the point pointed shaped It which he spatter it left a crown would make. ink from drop threw another appellant. He then out to showing appellant pen against angle, partly the wall and an from appellant He to examination how blood acted. stated types possible determine how of these three stains is to angle came; ink particular each was made and what fashion, appellant in the same and he showed that blood acted jacket and the areas where he found numerous blood jacket spatters. appellant portion He showed the left “Jack, said, spatters, this area has a number of smears, spatters on it.” He showed the left said, “Jack, sleeve and on this at the time we it there found spatters. spatters are numerous . . . There numerous are I addition we found smears. want to know is what your explanation stains, for these blood spatter stains jacket.” Appellant said, “I explanation have no make.” Mr. Pinker appellant, jacket an “This eye-witness.to jacket that crime. This going testify the facts I you have told interpret about. will have to testimony, its true. playing game You are a sucker you if your think phony story compete can microscope with the test Appellant said, you tubes.” “Well, strange things know happen, sometimes. I story read of person a where a com- gun. mitted suicide with a A bullet previously become lodged in gun the barrel of this and when they shot them- gun selves the kicked back behind davenport and an inno- person cent prosecuted for murdering person because having that bullet stuck the barrel.” Mr. Pinker said appellant, “Jack, you story. read that ain Ofttimes simple facts of one paragraph enlarged or two is 10 or 12 pages in story, angles sensational purposely are in- jected in story in order reading to make the interesting; probably the true particular facts of that case that he quite read simple, about are and no doubt there have been story. extortions in A ... common example of that are moving picture these horror plays in which a murder is com- mitted, attempt and each of us pick out the criminal during the filming picture, course of always and we are suspected mistaken. person, The least person appears who to be the most usually innocent out guilty turns to be the person.” Appellant said, “Well, I have not had happen to me. I only chapters saw three of the Grand Central murder case, I pick and was able out criminal without difficulty.” Appellant Pinker, then asked Mr. “Is it possible for these stains got my jacket to have on from pool “No, only replied, Jack, pool Pinker

blood?” Mr. body, and it floor and underneath the blood was body. large additional stain was protected by being large covering body, an stain the blanket this blood, it and the type of material had absorbed the absorbent Furthermore, . . . particular blood could not be there. jacket It blood when it contaminated this was fresh blood. you yet coagulated. Perhaps familiar, Jack, are had not coagulates speed with which and dries. the rate or the blood injured Perhaps you yourself, you have cut sometimes have your finger you it, you and have observed someone else do perhaps coagulates anywhere noticed the blood from have said, right.” Appellant a minute to five minutes.” “That is repeated, Mr. Pinker “The blood the time it had contami- jacket yet coagulated.” Appellant nated this black had not reply. anything Mr. Pinker then him if he made no asked had add what he told them appellant had said he not. said, “Well, Whereupon over, Jack, you Mr. Pinker think it you get I may are in as can in at the time. come back deep later, anything if you you and talk to little bit there is say might say can help up, us clear now the time to maybe any extenuating it. If circumstances, there are might here, up have been some self-defense involved it is you happened you to tell us what order that can answer your story help, your now is the time tell clear Appellant reply; no conscience.” made he whistled. Mr. appellant necessary Pinker asked if he had mind that it was dispose of, dispose for him to how would he of that knife. Appellant he' would throw it the weeds. Mr. Pinker “Well, now, said, there were not suppose any weeds con- handy thing disposal, you venient or for such what is the next Appellant replied: “I would with a knife?” would do throw said, “Well, it in the Pinker now, you ocean.” Mr. supposing you weeds, were not near the ocean and not near were how you dispose Appellant said, “Well, would of the knife?” place would hide it in most you obvious where would look at it and would not be able to see it.” At that time Officer said, City eh, Jack?”, Gannon “Like on the Hall steps, replied, “Something like that.” then said, enemy hiding “I FBI public recall a once working garage in a next door to the FBI.” Pinker said Mr. “Now, Jack, to appellant, place, name me an obvious some might I look place that and not see it anyone might or look Appellant said, depend and not see it.” “That would on the things.” circumstances and different said, Mr. Pinker “Well, give place, me an obvious name an place.” obvious Appellant said, “On the roof.” Mr. Pinker appellant asked lift his trousers on his left leg might order that he see whether or not he had wound there. Pinker Mr. found such a wound which corresponded general locality of the tear in given the trousers Planagan. Mrs. time, wound was scabbed at the deep enough to indicate that it had bled injury. at time of the April 24,

On 1943, the took appellant officers in an auto- mobile to the Courtemanehe and they house appellant asked to direct them over the route he had taken on day homicide. The officers had searched that before, route also general vicinity, empty lots and hiding whatever could be places for knives. place When a came to their attention and they thought might something there, hidden they get would out of the machine and search for knife, none They was found. returned to the San police Pedro station and later took a ride to measure the distance speedometer. automobile They drove from the corner of the Planagan home on appellant the route stated he had taken after he viewed body April 21, of Doris on 1943, and the distance was 1.2 miles. The appellant route took from his home to the Courtemanehe home was 0.4 of a mile. April 27,

On 1943, forensic chemist Pinker had a talk with investigation laboratory crime of the Los An geles Department. Police He said to appellant, “Jack, in an explain picture effort to jacket these blood stains on this your consistent with theory innocence, think hard now. possible Is it that at the time you arrived at the scene this body moving was still around; motion, it was still in and the result of that movement blood could have splattered been splashed you?’’ Appellant said, “Yes, possible.’’ that is He appellant, right now, go said to “All Jack, step let’s one possible body further. Is it may that the in a dif have been ferent position than it photograph was shown you days age, showed position several found which we body? possible body, Is it example, as an davenport lying rolled fell to the floor?” said, said, “No, it on the floor.” Mr. Pinker again. begin question To that first what “Well, let’s over on the you At the time arrived scene was your answer? is said, body Appellant moving still?” body or was the ‘1 ’’ 1 appellant, To the was still. He said to second body ‘ Jack, body on answer, lying was the your what is question, davenport or elsewhere when lying it on the floor or was said, lying on Appellant that “It you to scene?” came said, you “How come let me the floor.” Mr. Pinker find said, it, Appellant jacket blood stains on Jack?” all the with jacket.” He said “Oh, blood stains on that I knew there were you “When did know that there were blood appellant, to first day jacket?” Appellant said, “Oh, it was that stains on “Why you day.” said didn’t appellant, or next He to said, jacket?” Appellant off wash the blood stains Mr. you off. Blood is blood.” “Well, can’t wash blood appellant. no with Pinker had further conversation 27, 1943, p. m., 6 in the San Pedro April On between and jail, Hargett appel- He asked appellant. talked Officer in a you you lant: “Do are involved serious realize said, He Appellant appellant: “Yes.” said offense?” you strong against is to connect evidence “You realize that the circumstances, and you crime, in of those and view with" case in you this court the fact whether win lose view of your parents, great burden on going that it is to be a attorney’s fees, and money lot and going cost them a sav- your and all of father’s probably cost them their home I why you don’t tell me where ings, of that fact and view a knife, up this case and make breast can this clear find your Appellant medi- things get it and off conscience?” cutting be I did that I would tated awhile and stated: “If case, I think very I this and my throat. fell confident own Hargett rejoined, days I will out of here.” Officer a few lightly.” Appellant I it too “I didn’t think would take . father, get joba pay he could later back stated that producing “I without said, produce couldn’t this knife ap- Hargett Officer two other articles of evidence.” them, you I pellant, “Well, why me can find don’t show where I can ride with me and show me where come and take a ” up Appellant find ? waited awhile them clean this ease said, you “Will find Hargett tell me where I and Officer can ‘‘ ’’ They in the said, simplest will be found Appellant them ? suspect looking place and never place. could be You all kids Appellant said, “You know the being them there.” girl, Mary Ruby. me, goI with a nice in school are for and I have a you gentleman, can that I am a prove She I case confidence, I come out of this lot am sure will said, a one Appellant pulled “You know I fast O.K.” also Although anything. He my on doesn’t know brother. anyone picking I fight quite and I wouldn’t tolerate bit “Jack, I would Hargett appellant, him.” said to Officer thought. give thing think serious that over and some said, your You can save folks lot trouble.” I make put your cap. “You know could a feather could you appellant I dared.” The lieutenant if officer asked give could be him some information as to where the knife found, just He appellant sat silent. told give thought matter some serious and if he decided in anything get previous to touch At or at with him. that a conversation, appellant asked if he tried on this him were charge acquitted, again, and he and could be tried the officer appellant no, told jeopardy. he would be once in At point appellant stated, “When this is all I will look over you up show you and a brain twister.” Planagan,

Mrs. mother appellant, called as a witness defense, appellant pair the testified that had of fur-lined a gloves given which she believed to him were the Christmas before. She also appellant testified knew did not that she Sunday have his on “his prior homicide, knife the to the brother Bill wanted to wear his coat to show and some- the they He sport times traded coats. wore Bill’s coat and when Bill jacket to, he did wore if and he the leather he wanted going was it, to wear and he knew that carried knife Jack his it, in there he he going and didn’t want to it with so was wear it in to take out but it wasn’t coat.” also testified the She day of the “It 11:30 when homicide was about he came off to down the roof and he took a and talked bath Bill on in awhile, the roof Then he came paint. but he didn’t remember, and going to one I be- places. don’t both, I told usually cause when he went to so to one he went go him long as he him going there I wanted down get on downtown and his boots. left them He downtown I get half-soled, telephone and him pay them wanted got I gas bill and the bill and he he would and the bills. I keep mantel They up always were where bills unpaid. put are He wanted them in his billfold right riding in hip pocket, bicycle carried hand and I I all, afraid he would lose his wallet and so over reached put pocket. I zipper and said would them the He was combing mirror, his hair in front of I and over reached unzipped zipper pocket put and the bills money . . . no put there . . and in with There was them. . knife in pocket.. pocket If there had been a knife in . gotten I could not have had a bills there. . .He . had knife, just recently Planagan I hadn’t Mrs. noticed it.” testified that it was left appellant five minutes to twelve when Appellant’s house. brother Bill testified that “When (appellant) got company down to the telephone I saw zipper pocket, usually take the out of his bills where he car- knife, ried his but his knife there then. The bills wasn’t envelope were an he took envelope the bills out crumpled up envelope put pants in his front it ’’ pocket and paid According went the bill. the tes- timony Planagan, bicycles of Bill he and rode their utility to town pay bills in the sometime after lunch April 21, 1943; afternoon store, Kinney’s clothing visited went back home school Barton Hill grounds they played where hour handball an or so. took the stand and had testified that his folks given gloves bought him black for a present; Christmas that he hunting Roy knife at Hook’s De- on Seventh Street in the previous to homicide, cember purple which knife handle, and blue mixture couple it, and he lines around believed have must been long didn’t around inches but he lmow how was; wide it that he at used it bales paper cut paper Pedro, the Examiner in office place San he kind out for; looked that on Thursday Friday April or 21st before he missed his gloves and knife walking school; while home from he that carried in the knife the zipper pocket black of his jacket; got that in he the tear left knee of his pants while playing basketball Easter; the week before that he fell down knee; and skinned that what Chief Alderson testified was him; what he (appellant) told that he did not kill Doris Courtemanche, her; nor use a knife wrench on that when morning dead; that her that she was he recalled Ser- he saw regarding geant Hargett’s testimony the knife and that when Sergeant replied: asked him where the knife was and he throat”; you cutting my I that I he “If told would he own thought kidding thought officer and “I I kid was would joking. him”; they Appellant with that were both kind of also that he not in home about testified the Courtemanche death, Doris’ tes- day 4:30 the afternoon of the before Marilyn Courtemanche, tified not her on that did see day. Sergeant Har- On cross-examination he admitted that gett him, you you said to “Do that a realize are involved him, offense?” Sergeant Hargett serious Also that “In view of these circumstances and view of fact you court, going whether win or lose be a this case great on your parents, going burden it is to cost them a lot money attorney’s fees, probably cost them their your savings, why home and father’s and in view of the fact you don’t tell me up where I can find this knife and clear your this case get and make the best it and it off con- science?”; might money; that said it cost a lot of days job that in get a few he and could later would be out pay back his said that father. denied he produce he could not knife arti- producing without other cles, things but that he say: did “You want the other would it, too”; Sergeant Hargett Ap- and that said “Yes.” pellant Hargett further testified that at time hadn’t anything knife; (appellant) mentioned “was just making up big story kidding”; it. I didn’t jail take the fact that he was accused of murder very seriously; that at knife that time he did not have the Sergeant Hargett and told produce that he could not knife producing things; without other that he could even produce knife; that he didn’t black fur know where the gloves were; Thursday Friday that he them on be- missed fore Doris, Wednesday; the death of which occurred on a Hargett, “They that he simplest told will in the be found place, you could looking place suspect and not them ’ ’ being just kidding Hargett; just there. That he made up; that Mr. Pinker him where he would hide asked one, said, “Well, knife if he had throw it and he had would ’’ away simplest it in ocean or hide in the spot, throw it jail said, stairs?", house he Gannon “Like and said, in the (appellant) “Yes." admitted he was day died; home Doris that had Courtemanche before he just ’clock, o and was after 3:00 come from Frankie’s home guessed it was then said he did not know what time was afternoon; he not there about middle of the that was noontime; Betty Worden; around he knew Jane that that somebody Doris mentioned she a call from while that received knives; that he Betty there; spring Jane he had was that two guessed other away had thrown one of them was fair home; testimony his was state- that Chief Alderson’s all he knew about the (appellant) ment of all he that saw circumstances, except not Alderson that that he did tell Chief house; to Pete’s he he went over after left Frankie’s house directly his he from that he not tell the officers went did his keys to auto- place give him the home to his father’s house, mobile; the time he the Courtemanche that at went Mrs. garage; that bicycle against the side of the he put he was clothing when came down with a basket Worden house; called for that he coming the Courtemanche toward through that he looked porch; was on the front Pete while he covered; object to be appeared and saw an window going was something wrong, the radio thought was that he doorbell; ring the that nobody answered; that didn’t he blanket; body; all he lifted the over the that was blanket or run- dripping remember whether blood he didn’t that body coverlet; from that sure whether ning he wasn’t guessed a Courtemanche;-that he he saw that Doris how committed; not remember he did murder had been Worden until long elapsed time he saw Mrs. time door, half he was as much as out the front whether it walked Worden what he not; an tell Mrs. hour or he did not away from going seen; that Nolton when was he saw Mrs. he outcry an house; that he did not make the Courtemanche stomach; Ms house; very that he felt sick at after he left the trembling over; all that he did not he was know whether she met he his mother when didn’t remember what kind felt go he house; that he wanted to home because that took weak; all not a recollection of that he had clear day, place on that house while he inside the Courtemanche he stated; has things certain of all the “rug” picked up part what certain about was not in the house when he his mother body; that he met off the house, not remem- but did from the Courtemanche came back him, thought that his mother his mother said ber what Alderson; to him he sick ill when he talked Chief told when he talked knowledge sick or ill to his he was not that going to the school- police officers; that he remembered to handball; he wanted yard game or two of that playing a get away to from what had seen go picture show he to to told house; up that to that time he had not Courtemanche house; that anybody what he had seen at the Courtemanche might had a murder; he was afraid he that he be accused asking faint of his him about an accident recollection mother Mesa; bicycle, hitting with his down First woman it that never occurred to him to tell Mrs. Worden about the thing happened downstairs; awful that that it did occur to him to telephone police; use the then and call the that he had known many years, Doris for since she was five years age, six her, not remember and liked but did body Doris; whether he enough examined the to see it if was that he knew that Mrs. it worked; Courtemanche that he saw was a girl’s body; that he not tell anybody did and didn’t why know he did mother; not tell his that he and father his pals were and he tell father; didn’t his that wasn’t afraid he of his father’s accusing murder; him of want he didn’t worry bother or his something father with like that. On examination, redirect thought testified he ‘‘ Officer Hurst a pretty funny guy, He it on pin tried right me away”; that he thought crazy Officer Hurst he would not bull; trust him as far as he could throw a any he never had prior April appetite sickness and 21st his was enormous, day he ate three meals and meals in between meals. recross-examination,

On appellant was he had told asked if they officers explanation had no when asked him “No, clothes, about blood on replied: why his which anything? anyway.” should tell them I don’t them trust In connection point upon this the first raised appeal, appellant urges since identification as person solely who cir committed the crime was based evidence, par- question cumstantial of motive “becomes ticularly cogently material”; and that evidence part motive on his alleged commit the crime awas childhood happening incident years six before the date of the homicide, erroneously evidence was admitted over objection. question

On this motive, Wig- is stated volume 1 of more Evidence, ed., 559, 3d p. as follows: “It sometimes popularly supposed that in order charge to establish a crime, prosecution must possible show a motive. But this notion- is without Assuming foundation. for purposes of argument that ‘every motive’, act must prior have a i. e. im pelling (which emotion strictly correct), yet always is not it is possible that necessary may undiscoverable, emotion and thus the failure signify to discover it does not its non existence. The kinds vary an prove evidence to act probative strength, may kind the absence of one be more significant than the of another; absence but mere absence of one kind cannot a plan be fatal. There must have been (we do the act may assume); the accused must have been present (assuming action); it was done manual may be no preparation; may evidence of or there no evi be dence presence; yet of remaining may the ample facts furnish proof. to produce The failure of appropriate evidence some may motive great be in body a the whole of proof; weakness but it one, words, is not a fatal as a matter In of law. other is Evidence, there no more necessity, the of to dis law cover and particular emotion, establish the exciting some possible one, than particular to use other kind of eviden Citing People Durrant, 75], tial fact.” 116 179 P. v. Cal. [48 States, 396, 410, and Pointer 151 v. United U.S. 413 S.Ct. [14 38 208], L.Ed. latter holding: the case “The law does not require impossibilities. recognizes law that the cause of The killing the is something so hidden the mind and breast of party fathomed; and, the it who killed it cannot be as require jury not impossibilities, require does it does not the Yet, they it, simply to find it. if do find it becomes an item evidentiary best,— case, only evidence the which is is, it going an item of evidence to show whether is act, a particular party may have committed an and sometimes going to show the It is indis characteristics of that act. taking for pensable particular to conviction the motive by proof being the life of a human established shall be

403 jury. of the suggesting satisfaction absence evidence a charged motive for the commission of the crime is circum accused, given stance in favor of weight the such as jury proper; proof the deems but is indis motive never ’’ pensable perpetration to conviction. When crime of the brought has been defendant, home to for the motive its Durrant, unimportant. (People commission becomes v. supra.)

“The establishment aof motive for commission of a conviction, is not support pres- homicide essential to motive, ence whether a cir- strong, absence weak or is bearing upon cumstance guilt or innocence of the accused. Thus, proof indispensable, always while of motive is never it is permissible and prosecution may often valuable. The advance any theory within range experience of human reason- probability, to motive, able it support by appropriate evidence.

“Considerable latitude reception is allowed of evi question dence of motive. It is settled evidence having a tendency, direct in view the surrounding circum stances, prove part person motive on the of a to commit homicide, and thus to identity solve a doubt either as to slayer, of the degree offense, insanity of the accused, justification toor act, or excusability of his admissible, however it discreditably may reflect defendant, even may show guilty where other (13 685, crimes.” §74, Cal.Jur. cited, and cases in cluding People Greig, 548, v. 14 561 ; Cal.2d P.2d [95 936] People Larrios, v. 220 236, ; People 251 Cal. P.2d v. [30 404] Aranda, 12 ; Hall, 307 People Cal.2d P.2d v. 27 Cal. [83 928] App.2d ; People Perkins, 440 P.2d v. Cal.2d [81 248] P.2d 631].) [66

From it would appear prove motive failure is not prosecution fatal where conviction murder Moreover, is based circumstantial since evidence. testimony elicited of from the mother deceased child with respect episode apparently to the so-called childhood was permitted attempt to be in an the prosecution introduced prove to crime, motive for the the fore its admission under going rules of law was not erroneous. appellant objected

When to the introduction of this evi- discussion, dence, the trial was had between counsel and jury, hearing outside the the court court time your object put “If is that defendant stated: to show was if children, the mother not her that notice to bother your argue intention is, you is what that can an inference there, the boy that knew that he was not around wanted thing, that I think to probably proper sort that would be get do, directly indirectly not to attempt but from this why order, witness details of mother that made sort opened it up guise unless on cross-examination course, showing then, bias, prejudice, motive if is, you go your would let into it on redirect examination.” then brought It mother of that out the victim years homicide, appellant before she told not six home; away years; to her return that he remained about two that he then came to the Courtemanehe home four three year times a up week to about before the homicide and that (Mrs. there times Courtemanehe) appel- were when she sent home; lant permit play she him to there sometimes would them; children when she watch could that she had seen very year not quite recently; often until last never she found him there with Doris when she came work, home from undoubtedly but that when (Mrs. Courtemanehe) home; she not at on one occa- only during period sion years six did she consent appellant’s coming to her home and that was when he had ice-cream and begged some her children her to let him come they ice-cream, in so could eat the and that she said he could. jury The inference could have drawn from this direct that appellant evidence was knew Mrs. Courtemanehe did him coming want to her house and she watched him when Therefore, admission, stated, there. he was its as heretofore error, urged by did not constitute point under numbered six. point (numbered seven) makes the also attorney’s the district reference to the said childhood

episode opening closing arguments jury con “gross prejudicial appellant,” stituted misconduct in that prosecuting attorney constantly re emphasized “said part inimical prior iterated nonexistent conduct on the unexplained defendant of an nature.” objected phraseology particularly follows: “We will go as we backward- by the in this case you evidence show will motive, the Court speaking we are now often is of a case but you necessary proof tell is being to motive, motive prove can helpful to those who thing existing in the mind of why is done and show a capable made inquiry whom the is and person concerning evi- circumstantial byit his own declarations and performing this years or more prove you dence. We will that for to six home; . at . . Courtemanche had been unwanted defendant come, if Mrs. was that when he did Courtemanche you that prove will to very briefly remained because we stay home and go him to on Mrs. Courtemanche had ordered and had threat- upon premises and to come those never back Thereby . . . punishment him with he ever did return. ened if at time you will this knew the we establish to defendant entertained toward speak of which that Mrs. we Courtemanche hostility have feelings of the character which I spoken you, and in connection we will further establish affecting case, and as fact which we the motive this case, you proof ask other in this will to consolidate with all occurrence, years circumstance: Six the date of this this before girl at and a half approximately the time when the six but . . nine approximately and . defendant but this years age, half defendant Mrs. ordered this Courtemanche get never return. That premises stay off those here in this you. will be testified to before There evidence girl to her mother from screaming case little came upper floor of the on these garage premises where was, her, defendant short distance back of and cast herself her things. into her mother mother’s arms and told certain Planagan Her mother up walked and took him the arm him, ‘Planagan, premises and told ever come on these don’t children’, again. any you put your my Don’t ever on hand said, you and then up reached ear. and twitched his .She ‘Do you you feel ? I don’t know what should do to to make understand, you if here touch one of ever come back my again you I will Now get babies cut that off. out and ear out.’ stay Planagan Prom that moment unwanted attorney place Again, on the prosecuting knew it.” jury: you told the “. . . death came prove We will girl directly attempt unexpectedly without part flee, her at person, the hands of a who, in order to her death cause at protect that moment to himself from the results something done, that he had and that the stab you wounds that are described to are not the result of sadistic tendencies of an insane person severity of but the inflic- tion of the due time, blows to terror and terror of the doer over very seriousness of closing his act.” In his argument jury, to the attorney the district “. . . In stated: period that year of April, before last while Mrs. Courte- work, manche was at time, in period that of this defendant there, came and he must have in his Mrs. mind that Courtemanehe did not He she want him there. knew and why, enough knew but is to know that want him she didn’t every there. He knew him she didn’t like I have reason infer, you to I in justified the believe are inference during when she occasions he remained those around the premises watching took and she was him she the occasion to let him aware watching know that him and he was she was watching she was him. . . Let’s . consider that state- in light ment the of what we come back to know about this case, your and I indulgence, you ask if think I am too taking your of time, you much you boy guilty, because if find this going to quite going are take be lot of his time. There is to quite community, parents a lot time in that when the of of girls coming he whom he knows will not have to wonder is if you you to him inno- guilty, their house if find if find throughout beginning to cent there will be time down the all impressive the eternity itself, in Pedro there will be San of body girl- in her girl the little is her blood and who dead of unjustified hood, for, and remains un- which was uncalled avenged.” very statement,

At beginning prosecuting the of his the attorney jury anything warned the said should not he case; be considered as the and at the end thereof evidence the “simply purpose for stated had outlined case you permitting theory prosecution to . . . the of the of see you you . not told . . to consider evidence what have have as piece by to able to sit the evidence bit bit.” be excepted to the counsel at no time remarks of Appellant’s closing attorney, opening his prosecuting either jury. argument to duty making

It counsel statement to state is the

407 stating which he fairly and refrain from facts the facts Stoll, (People v. permitted prove. or will not cannot be 818].) opening 689, 693 An statement 143 Cal. P. [77 an intend to supposed People outline of what is so, of the rules The failure to do either account prove. necessarily reason, indicate evidence or other does not statement, implication of a prejudice. It the substance recog the effect of an what the law act which determines prejudicial misconduct. nizes law,

Applying foregoing prosecuting rules of attorney prejudicial did not opening commit misconduct jury specific statement when he referred to details years of the childhood episode prior which occurred six which, ruling homicide and under the trial court here mentioned, prove by not permitted inbefore wit ness Courtemanche.

As stated in revision, Supp., Cal.Jur. 10-Yr. 767, p. scope “The by attorney comment prosecuting extends facts that have been cross-examina established tion, as well as proved those that have been direct exami permissible nation. range discussion merits case, both as to facts, law is comprehensive. attorney may The argue questions law, discuss and of excuse or condemn actors, any theory the of motives and advance that support finds in the evidence. credibility of wit may by credibility nesses him, be assailed if has im been. peached by evidence, by or of inconsistencies incoherence by testimony, testifying, by ap the witness’s manner of the pearance of the testifying, by while witness circumstances. or Again, attorney may argue the prosecuting that the crime was any in reasonably committed manner that the shows evidence possible. may He theory defense, of denounce a the refer to things that jury viewing have been seen the while the premises, speak them, of articles that have been exhibited to comment the with which the respecting instrument crime formally committed—although has not been introduced addressing in evidence. jury, In prosecuting ... the attor ney should scope restrict to matters of his statements attempt within the any are record. He should not to evolve theory or to into feature not any introduce the case is fairly justified and reasonably (Citing the evidence.” authorities.) numerous

408 attorney matters

It where district refers to expresses in or are not evidence his own conclusions which upon evidence, indulges in not founded or where he unwar or upon orderly ranted attacks defendants interferes with the way, in processes alleged of court some miscon argument may in jury duct construed to be reversible McKenzie, Cal.App.2d (People error. v. P.2d [55 1200].) attorney prosecuting None remarks of of the jury category prejudicial herein miscon- comes within of judgment. reversal of the duct which would warrant a question not raise the error in Although appellant does of denying requested, of error committed instructions nevertheless, giving instructions, because of the remarks of of epi- attorney respect to the childhood prosecuting sode, proper think it quoted, hereinabove we state following given by the trial instruction court: was. judges weight of the of

“You are the sole and exclusive witnesses, credibility your and it is func- evidence and the arising tion from the evi- questions to determine all of fact right of court and counsel to com- dence the case. It is the deny any explain ment evi- on the failure of defendant him, evidence, the against dence on the testi- and to comment jurors mony credibility any witness; yet the are them judges questions all of fact submitted to exclusive credibility witnesses. judges of the you “But while are the sole and exclusive weight evidence, you judge facts are to and of produced here upon testimony facts other evidence and afterwards any court. If has been admitted evidence out, disregard entirely the matter so you stricken must by questions out, any stricken and if has intimated counsel that certain permitted which the court to be answered has not questions things you disregard such are, true, or are not must If coun- them. any and refrain inferences based your pres- sel, side, upon either have made statements concerning case, be careful you ence the facts must entirely regard evidence, must look such statements as however, If, ascertaining what facts proof are. facts, you are stipulated agreed counsel to certain have conclusively proven. regard being stipulated the facts so to as

409 during any the trial has admitted fact or facts party If either case, in this such to the matters involved admission material you against party making proven as is to be deemed such admission.” give appellant’s requested in-' refused to trial court

struction: Attorney opening statement said that

“The District presented this case that ‘the little there would be evidence screaming upper to her mother from the floor girl had come was, premises those where defendant garage her, herself her short back of and cast into mother’s distance things. Her her mother certain mother walked arms and told Planagan him, arm and told Plana up to and took you gan, premises again. “Don’t ever come on these Don’t my you your any hand children” and put ever then said, youDo that ? up twitched ear. feel reached She understand, you you I know I should do to to make don’t what you my but if ever come back here and touch one of babies again Now, you get stay will cut that ear off. out and out.” Planagan place From that moment on on the was unwanted and knew it. or testimony

“You are instructed no evidence has been Attorney these adduced to establish facts which the District prove, stated he would and that there has been failure you respect. For this reason are instructed to proof entirely absolutely disregard the District statement Attorney facts, you to any to these nor are draw inference may facts true.” these be requested improper give

It would have been following proposed, instruction in the form because the direct evidence was introduced tended to establish some of the prosecuting attorney prove: stated would facts which “Q. Courtemanche, (by Deputy Attorney District to Mrs. child) you I want to sure that the mother of the deceased : be just you and no less. answer what is asked of and no more Courtemanche, approximately years Mrs. on one occasion you April the 21st last did talk with Jack before this date Planagan your question ? That is to place at own be answered you Q. Now, that time in that talk did yes or no. A. Yes. at Planagan, this defen- say anything about whether not Jack premises future dant, or come those 410 yes (Objection by Just no.

time? answer or defense counsel Q. overruled.) By Now, Yes. in that A. Mr. Veitch: conver- you say him? tell him you sation what did Did to return return, (Objection or him not tell which of the two? de- Q. By overruled.) fense counsel A. Not to return. Mr. Veitch: After that talk did this defendant return continue to Q. your premises long ? A. No did sir. For about how continuously away your premises imagine from ? I remain A. Q. 2 years. least Well, period . . after such of time . what you returning your did of this observe defendant home or being premises? (Objection around the counsel defense of. overruled.) grown up I noticed that he quite A. a bit. Q. being By you Mr. Veitch: No. What did notice about him premises, say you around the first? did see him around You premises your upon premises or home? A. After years? 2 Q. Q. Now, frequently Yes. A. Yes sir. how you period speaking would occur are now you Planagan your premises? saw Jack in or around Well, Q. A. 3 or 4 those at that times a week. On occasions you yet gone Q. time had your- as to work? A. No sir. Got job Q. ? you go self a A. in to No sir. When did first start get yourself year work job? ago April. AA. last Q. Well, long boy Planagan how did it this continue say week, would be around those 2 premises you as or 3 times a up to about Well, when? A. when started he wouldn’t school quite often, be there just then, so now and but not often. Q. Up to long how April year before the 21st of last was it you 2 Planagan then, saw 3 perhaps now and times a week, in premises? give IA. can’t the definite Q. number of times. I quite That is not what intended to ask you Up long either. ago Plana- about how it that Jack gan you continued to come to time or that would from time upon your see him premises 2 or 3 you perhaps have said Yes, times a question you? week? Is that I be- clear to A. lieve it (Objection is. Then answer it. counsel defense overruled.) guess ago. Q. . . . IWell, year By A. about Mr. coming Veitch: Now, during period of time when he was to the 2 perhaps week, house did premises, or 3 times a you say anything being to him place about around the overruled.) of those (Objection occasions? of defense counsel A. There were Q. times I him By when sent home. Veitch: Mr. you would send Well, frequently transpire would it how (Objection overruled.) defense . . . home? counsel him Courtemanehe, some- Well, A. The Mrs. 7 or times. Court: you boy come over there would times when would always. Q. you him home? A. Not Sometimes would send children, you? let him wouldn’t A. Yes play Q. sir, when I watch them would. And other times could ‘ you having say get tired around Go on would home’, sir, was that it. A. No that was not the reason. right, go Q. By Now, All ahead. Court: Mr. Yeitch: about year ago Flanagan coming happened respect what to Yes, him place? you around the Did see after that not? A. or I very him year quite have seen often the last until but recently. Q. Well, you say quite recently you when mean recently during spring year? rather time of this Yes A. Q. you year sir. see him during Did this before the Easter your No, vacation of school around A. I place. don’t believe Q. I Now, you your did. did come ever home from work Flanagan find Jack there Doris INo, and Pete? A. didn’t Q. come home from work and him find there. Did you period now, ever come home in this months, of several well, say thing let’s before the time this happened, terrible during then, year you before did ever come home from anywhere work and find him I may there ? I have. suppose .A. I being can’t remember of him evening un- doubtedly I Q. No, you he was there when wasn’t home. don’t my question. being understand Did you ever come home from during somewhere at work or downtown year before April 21st and discover that this defendant was there with your say discover, children at the house ? IWhen I mean see your him there with children at the house. No . . A. sir. . Q. During period years whole of six you to which have just you referred did at time invite or ask defendant this upon premises, your (Objection home? of de- overruled.) fense counsel I ... A. once to consented Flanagan coming my Q. into home. He When was that ? A. my begged some ice cream and children me to let they come so could eat I the ice cream and he could.. . . Q. By Mr. Yeitch: you Other than one occasion of which spoken, have you did ever invite consent to the invitation Flanagan Jack your into upon your premises home or

412 Q. By of 6 A. No

during period years. sir. . . Mr. . During period you 6 of which are years speak- Veitch: go ing, you request Planagan ever Jack home or to did leave, least, your premises? (Objection of defense counsel overruled.) my I children in ... A. have on occasions called get (Answer of him. stricken motion defense rid Planagan go counsel.) definitely I never told ... A. Jack Q. exception of once. Was that the occasion home with the years you yesterday, ago? about told us 6 A. Yes sir. sir; night go she him to -no then the before died told Q. night Yes, she home. That was the before died? A. ago.” 6 years then one other occasion urges showing oppor that “a a mere tunity justify to commit a crime is insufficient a verdict guilty.” showing opportunity It law that evidence an is the justify apart to commit the crime does not a conviction circumstances, other all oppor unless it excludes reasonable tunity (People Woo, Tom for its commission another. v. 181 People Tarbox, 57, 328 115 315, 389]; Cal. P. v. Cal. [184 ; People 728, 48 Silva, Cal.App. P. v. P. [46 896] [192 330].) though Even no one of it were conceded that facts, summarized, standing alone, hereinbefore would be verdict, nevertheless, sufficient uphold the cir when all jury may cumstances which the have resolved from the evi together, dence appeal are considered be held cannot that they guilt. were not of sufficient to warrant an inference

Appellant next attention the rule that the calls upon guilt circumstances relied to establish the of one accused of hypothesis crime must be consistent with that incon any words, sistent with In other rational conclusion. other incriminatory upon equally where the circumstances relied are compatible reviewing innocence, with a will reverse a court judgment conviction, rule to application and a like case, claimed, judg this it is impel would a of the reversal ment. announced, People in v. pointed rule above as out

Newland, 678, 778], quoting 15 682 P.2d Cal.2d [104 People Perkins, “is a 502, 631], v. 8 519 P.2d rule Cal.2d [66 of instruction jury, guidance for the and is not the rule for the than to the no more court on review.” The rule “does in jury that, instruct the if is created their a reasonable doubt But, reason, they minds for any acquit must the defendant. 413 rejects hypothesis pointing the innocence jury where the by verdict, support implied its and there is evidence to finding guilt hypotheses, the more of the as reasonable two finding jury.” by court is bound Martinez,

In People Cal.App. 343, 952], 344 P. v. [128 it is “Where the circumstances are to reason said: such as ably justify guilt, jury, by an inference of as found might fact that an inference of be innocence likewise reason ably question drawn therefrom present not law for does by appellate review an court more than does verdict upon evidence; conflicting based direct in neither ease will the verdict not be disturbed. We are unmindful Su People in preme Court Staples, v. Cal. 405 P. [86 886] employs language seemingly view, inconsistent with this upon claims if review this court is of opinion reasonably the circumstances are com patible innocence, then, with defendant’s notwithstanding they reasonably justify the fact that guilt the inference of by jury, drawn therefrom entitled reversal to a judgment. reply In quote approval to this we language Judge by People Muhly, Chipman used v. 15 Cal. App. (114 [416], 419 [1017], 1018), P. where, discussing Staples case, says: ‘We do understand that ease to hold that where the circumstances are reasonably such as to justify the inference of guilt, the case will taken from be jury might because an inference reasonably of innocence also have been drawn. jury Between two inferences the these choose, must and it is obviously where evidence does not warrant guilt the inference of that the will inter court so, fere. weight This must be or the of circumstantial evi dence, and the inference from it every to be drawn in almost case, finally must appellate court, determined thus making the court the arbiter of law and both fact.”

In the instant case the circumstances established reasonably justified evidence jury the conclusion of the expressed in their verdict.

Appellant next that the contends court erred ad mitting 21, evidence over objection People’s Exhibit spring-bladed Hargett knife. Officer testified a con versation he had appellant, with he the latter told him that knives, owned pocket a knife, spring-back three a knife awith scabbard; in that hunting blade, and a knife a brown snap home, knife regular were spring-back knife and Friday to the hunting previous knife on that lost the he three or four that he had had Appellant homicide. testified a bought spring knife about knives; push-button he that it he when broke it a few months year but had before bought hunting knife after away, it and that he and threw that he had two cross-examination, he testified that. On that the away guessed knives, he threw spring-bladed one arrest; and that was at his home at the time other the knife was at up held which snap that the blade on spring-bladed knife He was broken. was shown the home lock; not and it did and testified that the catch was broken as on this knife was he that did know whether blade spring- long broken hunting as on the knife. the blade prosecution, was then in evidence back knife offered it imma- objected ground which the defense on the di- objection stating that the terial. The court overruled specifically referred two rect examination of the possessed. knives allowing argues of the court error placed pronounced more this knife to be evidence becomes jury, attorney’s argument prosecuting in view of the body these received in which when that stated: “And that that evidence upon head, maintain awful wounds got alone, 13-A that as she sat there she and 13-B show us cuts; big as as this which knife that knife a blade has size it want to show the knife perhaps Mr. Hurst—I cuts are from three- to make those cuts. Those would take It take a an than an inch. would quarters inch to better in this Exhibit to do big as the one blade hunting knife of defendant It was that sort of work. ’’ carried him. purpose to order for him built 1‘ the possession Tools instruments crime found after the commis under the control of the soon defendant they may evidence whenever of the offense be offered sion link which tend in the chain circumstances constitute charged. the commission of offense to connect evidence, it they must shown before can be received But committed, in fact and that charged the crime pro like those committed with the aid of instruments

415 evidence, shown in the posed to be defendant ’’ in or about the offense committed. vicinity the at time the (8 144.) Cal.Jur. the had several knives

Since evidence showed others, hunting particularly and had broken some and lost the home, spring-bladed had a broken at the knife, but knife admission knife in purpose of this latter evidence was for the showing jury type possessed the the and kind knives by appellant. in prosecuting attorney argument The knife, 21, the People’s speaking used Exhibit of the cuts body deceased, found the of the these and that cuts were by large a blade as made the one evidence. The admis- sion of this knife was within the trial sound discretion of the court.

“Physical objects part of, which form serve to illus- trate, the transaction or occurrence subject which is the investigation may formally be in evidence, introduced it in the discretion judge may rests of the trial they whether be carried from by jury the bar the its on As retirement. its competency, by demonstrative is all evidence measured qualifications prescribed by the law, it always and must be relevant the issue. . . . it competent, where tends to light on, throw and has bearing a direct upon, a material it issue, is admissible is not to be excluded because its (Wharton’s other jury.” effects Evidence, Criminal ed., 2, 1275.) 11th vol. p. produced contends that the evidence trial herein support is insufficient to the verdict

judgment. In determining question, this it is upon incumbent this court keep guided in mind by and be the rule that finding jury after the by of the approved has been the trial court on for a motion new trial it is appeal, conclusive on appellate may an only court disturb it it when can be matter of said as a law that was no sufficient and sub support stantial evidence it. We must assume in favor of the decision jury of the of every existence fact which jury reasonably could have deduced from the evidence guilt and then determine whether is deducible therefrom. Walsh, 164, 50 (People Cal.App.2d v. 169 ; P.2d [122 671] v. People Hennessey, 201 568 49]; People Cal. P. v. [258 Rose, 26 Cal.App.2d 737]; People 513 P.2d Tedesco, v. [79 1 Cal.2d 211 467].) P.2d [34

416 v. by People New Supreme

As stated Court applicable “The land, 678, P.2d : rule Cal.2d [104 778] evidence, otherwise, that a there is circumstantial or where the defendant has been committed crime by thereof, many has been times reiterated perpetrator appeal reviewing courts of state as follows: court evidence, attempt weight not of the ‘will to determine it but will whether face evidence decide found facts have been can held sufficient could guilt. For is the jury to warrant the inference jury instance, and of the court function first trial verdict, are to determine what facts established after evidence, jury, of the has been and before the verdict which upon on approved by court, appeal the trial can be set aside ‘it evidence, be made ground’ insufficiency the of the must of is there clearly appear hypothesis no whatever support sufficient conclusion substantial evidence the charge the The determination of a reached in court below. : of distinct proof propositions a criminal case involves two second, First, committed, and charged offense was by persons perpetrated person accused was We in favor thereof. ... must assume of the verdict exist reasonably every jury of fact have de ence which could evidence, such from the then whether duced and determine support are If the circum facts sufficient to the verdict.’ opinion reasonably jury, the justify the verdict of the stances might those also reviewing of court that circumstances reconciled innocence the defendant reasonably be with the determination not warrant interference with the will ours.) authorities.) (Citation (Italics jury.” wanted was not The record discloses not care home. Pete Courtemanche did the Courtemanche of the member Apparently with him. to associate He family Doris. visited appellant was interested was family. of the at her members her home the absence of other boys, other because go think out with did not she should He under her for her bedroom young. He called she was too slain, go told to nights was window two before she homicide, appel by day mother. On the before home her ruffling home room of the Courtemanche living lant was in the Marilyn mood, when playful Doris’ hair a up However, left be- work. he home from came Courtemanche day homi- came home. On the Mrs. Courtemanche fore going cide, where instead the beach Pete Courtemanche day, appellant went spending and Frank Cordero were body he looking through Doris. In the window saw the to see living floor near the divan in the room. He entered on the house, cover, body girl’s lifted the it was a and left saw got front his not bicycle away, door. He and rode home, then away toward home but from his felt sick to home his stomach went where was met his mother. he ill pale He looked when his mother asked what wrong her he a riding he told had hit woman while on his bicycle, story. later admitted was false went He bed, minutes, dairy nap took ten or fifteen drove to get milk, with his brother to paid some went to town and mother, some for his to schoolyard bills went brother played handball, home, returned his mother served dinner eat, moving but he could went to a picture with his show brother, returned and went to bed. During home this time he disclosed to no one what he had seen the Courtemanche earlier, day. home in the He not tell did his father because he did not want to worry bother or him. He did not dis- what close seen morning until next when his father questioned jacket him. The black leather which he was wear- ing day splatters the homicide had blood on human it and there was right human blood on the cuff which had lining saturated into the the sleeve on the inside of the jacket. zipper pocket jacket Inside the of the spots were of blood, human as well appellant’s right as on trousers over the pocket right side and over the rear pocket. When asked about spatter jacket by the stains Pinker, forensic chemist appellant he explanation had no make.

told Mr. Pinker he knew there jacket were blood stains why and when asked off, he didn’t wash the he replied: stains “Well, you can’t wash blood off. Blood is blood.” Appel- lant testified he that did not remember whether blood was body; or dripping running from covering the blanket that he was not sure that the body saw was that Doris he of Courte- ; manche guessed that he committed; murder had been that he didn’t elapsed remember long how a time from the time he saw Mrs. Worden until he walked out front of the door house, Courtemanche whether it was as as half an hour much seen; not; that did not Mrs. Worden what he had tell Mrs. leaving Notion when he was Courte- that he saw discovery body; after his house of Doris’ but that manehe outcry. conclusively Betty no It that he made established . 21, at morning April Worden 11:00 o’clock on the of Jane “out 1943, saw Doris Courtemanehe that little white edge that cliff’’; that is on the Mrs. Olson saw fence morning 11:25 walking dog her o’clock that about Doris home; that Mrs. Worden saw block from Courtemanehe at 11:30 appellant approaching Courtemanehe house body Courtemanehe was o'clock, the dead of Doris Courtemanehe, her at 12:28 brother, discovered Bobert day; police that Bobert Courtemanehe notified o'clock that officer Elliott arrived at Gannon Lieutenant 12:35 home at or 12:40 o’clock. Courtemanehe produced definitely placed appel- at the trial evidence The homicide, and, although mainly cir- lant at the scene of jury find sufficient from which the could cumstantial, it was to a moral guilt beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s certainty. nothing in indicate that the

While there is the record to prejudice passion jury reached its verdict result as jacket introduced it black leather is also clear con- objection, this nevertheless court evidence without n placing pieces this practice demns case followed jacket blood stains cellophane upon to mark the the said red eye. It would not the naked which were visible to thereon marked spatters might have been that these stains or appear grue- conspicuous manner in order obviate some less eyes jacket presented to the appearance which this some red jury, covered, with these markers as was appearances blood. simulated the the statement appellant’s makes closing In his brief counsel subjected continuously and with shameful appellant “was a group of inquisition pertinacity to unconstitutional time, men, in number at a so many as five husky adult ’’ reaction, etc. any normal mental the lad was unable to have complaint. foundation for record not disclose does contrary, testified that he was afraid of the On any unkind not remember and that did any of these officers

419 displayed act toward him being questioned by when he was during the period April them 22 April 30, from 1943. prejudicial No appearing error in the record and the evi- being dence sufficient jury, to sustain the verdict of the the judgment and appealed is, order are, each of them affirmed.

Doran, J., concurred. WHITE, J.—I dissent. Concededly, this is a case wherein evidence upon circumstantial alone is relied to sustain the conviction. It is also conceded no motive whatsoever for by shown the commission of homicide de- fendant. In connection with motive, the absence Su- our preme Court, in People Albertson, ease of v. 23 Cal.2d 550, 7], 567 P.2d language: uses this [145 considering

“In the sufficiency of prove evidence guilt of Albertson, it pertinent is the startling note fact that no motive whatsoever . . is . shown.

“The absence motive, may conceded, it be furnishes but element for one jury consideration in connection with the other case, circumstances in proof and if of guilt is otherwise sufficient presumption overcome the innocence the defendant must stand convicted notwithstanding no mo- tive has been shown. But, nevertheless, ‘absence of motive support tends to presumption of innocence’ v. (People Woo, Tom 181 315, Cal. P. 389], as stated in [184 People 387, Kelley, v. 609], Cal. 390-391 P. a case [281 upon by prosecution, relied proof ‘The absence of of motive ’ ’’ is a fact to be reckoned on the of innocence. side record, In this state am impressed any errors of law committed during might trial well assume propor- tions which could have turned the scales favor of prose- cution militated prejudicially against the defendant’s rights. substantial While the law makes no distinction be- direct tween and circumstantial evidence in degree proof required conviction proof guilt demands beyond be established reasonable doubt evidence of other, character or both, one nevertheless, elemen- tary law the circumstances relied to establish the guilt of the accused hypothesis must consistent with that and inconsistent other rational conclusion. attorney jury, to the district opening statement the In his years six to incident which occurred some referred an the district to the homicide and connection with prior little in this the attorney is evidence case said, “There upper screaming mother the girl to her came floor of from was, short premises the on where the garage these defendant mother’s arms into her her, distance back and cast herself things.” This matter is referred her certain and told mother length at some opinion. to the main sought to in- trial, attorney during When the the district mentioned, just vigorous evidence of incident troduce the objection After discussion by defendant. out- was made the prosecu- presence jury, the court ruled side in question tion of the incident could not introduce evidence said to the other than as to what the mother the deceased away defendant, admonishing him to remain Courte- any inferences the premises. manche In order to overcome attorney in his jury said might draw from what the district following in- opening statement, defendant offered struction, which was refused: Attorney said that opening District in his statement

“The ‘the in this case presented there would be evidence girl screaming upper from the little had come her mother to was, garage the defendant floor of the on where premises those her mother’s her, a short back cast herself into distance and things. Her mother arms and told her mother certain walked him, Flana- Flanagan arm told up by and took him the and to Don’t you premises again. “Don’t gan, ever come on these my and then children” you any of put your ever hand on you feel up ear. said “Do reached twitched his She you you do to make I I that? don’t know what should one of understand, you here touch but if ever back come my Now, you get out again will that ear off. babies cut Flanagan un- stay From out.” that moment ’ place it. wanted and knew testimony has been “You are instructed that no evidence Attorney which the District adduced establish these facts a failure of has been prove, he would that there stated you For reason are instructed proof respect. this Dis- entirely absolutely disregard the statement of you in- facts, nor draw are Attorney trict these may ference facts be true.” these given. prejudicial have This instruction should been attorney opening of what the effect district state- screaming girl with reference to “The little had come ment garage her mother from upper floor of on those was, short premises where defendant distance back her, cast herself her into mother’s and told her arms things” mother certain was intensified the discussion objection attending made defendant when it sought, during trial, testimony to introduce of the inci- give dent into evidence. it is true the judge While did a cer- tain instruction as set majority opinion forth and which juries cases, in practically my read to all opinion it is the prominent necessary did not cover and features of the which was offered and instruction refused.

The defendant requested also the trial court to instruct the jury that the defendant age years; the of fifteen that boy age that is not presumed required by a or law to exer- “judgment, discretion, cise the same consideration or acumen” in his actions reactions, statements, conduct or that would exercised by person age a be of more mature under the same only required circumstances is degree exercise that judgment and discretion ordinarily usually which would youth aby exercised age years acting be of fifteen under the same circumstances. The court give refused this or similar instruction. impressed proffered that am the instruction a contains statement of

correct the law that the jury and should have been advised. refused instruction so assumed im- much portance jury the required consider, because a link as chain evidence, the of circumstantial reactions, the conduct the defendant, when, behavior of minor according to his testimony, body he discovered the lifeless of the deceased. that, giving evidence, I am convinced consideration to such jury have the should been applicable admonished as the law actor when the was of the more or thereto therein less imma- age years. of fifteen ture

I am further that convinced the court should have instructed jury by defendant, the requested as that personal the their opinions as proven to facts properly cannot be resorted although, women, to as the a verdict; basis for as men and they might exist, believe that certain nevertheless, facts as at they could act evidence introduced the

jurors, alone, trial, upon that their verdict should the given in general instruction based. While is true every court, in criminal trial the the course of practically gov- instruction, jury counselled “You are to be such erned, therefore, solely by the evidence introduced you my given court,” it is belief trial the law as case, that, circumstantial because of nature of this introduced, of mo- character of evidence and the absence jury tive, specifically the court should have warned the acting upon anything except the evidence intro- beware legally the trial inferences dedueible there- duced at as the from, in at their verdict. In a case such arriving entirely one, circumstantial, instant the evidence where support presumption lack of tends to inno- motive against the cence, meticulously guard possi- the court should n jury bility being considerations other resort arriving their trial at than evidence introduced verdict. opinion my prejudicial

It error resulted is also knife, 21, spring-bladed People’s the introduction of Exhibit majority opinion forth in the circumstances set under herein. argument, attorney district exhibited closing

In his big “It take as jury and said would blade knife 21 to sort of work. the one that is in exhibit do that of this defendant built to order hunting It was knife by him, upon him.” The error of purpose and carried knife as an exhibit in the fact that there admitting this lies identifying no evidence the knife admitted into evidence Hill, investigation. (People v. 123 the crime Cal. with under jury 443].) Consequently, the could con- P. 571 [56 it, it, by the defendant. jecture that or one like was used was con- manner in the trial to the which With reference holding that it cannot ducted, majority opinion, while passion of verdict as the result jury arrived its be said at in which in the manner nevertheless, reference to prejudice, or into evi- jacket introduced leather black the defendant’s condemns dence, say, to “... This court my have this associates cellophane red placing in of followed this case practice stains thereon which jacket mark the upon the said to blood

423 eye. not It appear visible to the naked that these were would might or in splatters stains have been marked some less con- spicuous manner in to gruesome appearance order obviate the jacket presented eyes covered, jury, which to the of was, as it these appear- red markers which simulated the ’’ vig- of a ance blood. Conduct of trial merits such which of that impress being orous condemnation does not me as judicial investigation of type contemplates which law seeks to arrive at truth. Guilty innocent, or appellant was entitled to have his case fairly according tried of law. That established rules may in doing justice unfair means have to a de- resulted particular case, fendant in argument a no valid furnishes for resorting means, justice to such un- because so attained is just dangerous to community. the whole respect That for the cannot inspired by law be withholding protection law, recognizes True, of the exceptions. no of acquittal guilty person miscarriage is a justice, of we should forget the conviction of an person through innocent relaxation of legal those principles, fundamental with which arewe concerned, tragedy. here be a would With reference section of of article VI the Consti 4% tution, my it is not that the understanding same is intended to mean merely may legally because the evidence able be up weight stand under the judgment, that is suffi cient reason all cases refusing judgment. set aside the (People Davis, v. 540, 210 Cal. 32].) 556 P. As was [293 People Wilson, 513, v. Cal.App. 971], P. [138 phrase, ‘miscarriage justice,’ “The of not simply does mean guilty that a man escaped, has or that an innocent man has been It equally convicted. is applicable to cases where the acquittal from, or the has resulted some conviction form of rights people trial which the essential or the de of of disregarded were right or denied. The accused fendant given trial, case substantially conducted accord fair ing law, right is at same time all inhabitants country protection against might procedure which illegally deprive liberty. time some them ‘It an life part justice innno essential question guilt that the shall be orderly legal cence determined an procedure, rights which the belonging substantial to defendants shall 424 People by Justice Sloss

respected.’ (Opinion written Mr. ” ours.) 1042].) (Italics 55 P. O’Bryan, Cal. v. [130 trial impartial fair defendant is denied that When a and denial law, amounts guaranteed by procedure such Alabama, 287 U.S. (Powell v. process [53 due law. 158, 527].) 84 A.L.R. 55, S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. say this court to whether persuaded

I that it is for am nothing herein said guilty, is think defendant we or the indicating any opinion way one me to be taken my is, however, guilt. It question on the of his actual other set judgment that, jury instructed as heretofore been into evi- law the admission forth, and had the errors'of committed, such instructions dence the knife not been the absence errors would have added a substantial of such say favor, and who can item to defendant’s balance might This been rendered. but what a different verdict have fiendish, brutal, depraved character I assert of the because murder we are here concerned. with which all of cruel charged guilty that murder. If degree murder. crime, guilty and inhuman first However, the Strictly speaking, ground. no there was middle degree murder. jury found second appellant guilty me, indeed, To the verdict Here, remarkable verdict. if it not indicate doubt nothing rendered showed did their jurors of the the correctness of the minds as to solution engen- Was problem to them. doubt submitted such say? Who can by the have alluded? dered errors which denying a new7 opinion, judgment the order my In remanded a retrial the cause trial should be reversed and prejudice. consequent of such errors devoid Supreme hearing Court Appellant’s petition for a J., J.. Carter, Traynor, September 1, 1944. was denied hearing. for a voted

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Planagan

Court Name: California Court of Appeal

Date Published: Aug 2, 1944

Citation: 150 P.2d 927

Docket Number: Crim. 3770

Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.