*1 30, 1967.] 9056. In Bank. Mar. No. [Crim. Respondent, LEO PEOPLE, Plaintiff and CARLTON THE Appellant. LOOKADOO, JR., Defendant and *3 appointment Grossberg, Supreme under Appellant. Richard M. Court, for Defendant Lynch, Attorney General, Haws, Edsel W. John Thomas C. Deputy Kremer, Attorneys General, L. Giordano and Daniel J. Respondent.
for Plaintiff and appeal (Pen. McCOMB, J. Code, is an This automatic (b)) judgment, subd. from a after trial before the § jury, finding guilty a defendant murder in court without of penalty. degree imposing the death first Early morning Sunday, October Facts: on rifle, apartment, his .22 caliber left defendant took operated by Ar- to a service station Modesto John drove bought gasoline and a a dollar’s worth of thur Inman. He package cigarettes, and quart asked a of oil. He then for living area the station Inman back into the when went picked up rifle, cigarettes, followed get the get said, stick-up, I inside, “This is a want to Inman “Nobody replied, Turning around, Inman money.” some reaching defendant, going get me,” and moved toward the rifle. firing fired six shells at Inman. He Defendant started him, de- Inman to advance toward all, and when continued him to the floor and knocked hit him with the rifle fendant Inman’s out- poured pan gasoline over unconscious. He register, cash struck body, money from the took the stretched gasoline-soakedbody, and fled. a match to the plea of not February defendant entered 11, 1965, On insanity the murder guilty by reason guilty and not 60-day time limitation. charge thereafter waived the appeared April 14, 1965, he Code, 1382, 2.) (Pen. subd. On § leave to waive motions for and made with counsel court guilty reason plea withdraw his jury trial and to granted. insanity. Both motions were *4 represented 19, defendant, by counsel, April On jury guilty a and found the court without tried before penalty at degree. fixed the The court in the first murder death. contends: Defendant not he should condition That in view his mental First. jury to waive a trial. permitted
have teen defendant psychiatrists examined court-appointed Two jury a trial. One hearing he waived at which prior to the groups,” defective him “in the mental borderline classified intelli- “of dull normal estimated him to be and the other should therefore that he gence.” Defendant contends jury. a permitted to waive have been Cal.Rptr. People Monk, 288, 298 v. 56 Cal.2d [10] [14 rejected claim that defendant’s 865], we 633, 363 P.2d as evi- state, his mental his lack education and because of reports, unable to under- by psychiatrists’ he was denced reports jury consequences waiving trial. The a stand the sane, that his emotionally but disordered showed that he was had in intelligence adequate, and that he been native perhaps grade. schoolto tenth present psychiatrists In the ease both concluded that reported
defendant was sane. One of them that on direct examination defendant was environment, found to be contact with his quickly that he think easily, could blocking thought, and there was no that on the Bellvue highest in test he scored comprehension, Verbal reasoning, arithmetical reported and retention. The other that his re sponses were and relevant and coherent without evidence of thought processes. in his disorder Defendant started years age quit at five or six school sixteen in the grade. Accordingly, holding ninth our the Monk ease is controlling here.
Although the trial court a criminal case is not required explain nature and conse quences waiving jury of his action trial is, where he as in bar, represented by the case at counsel fails to show that either he or his counsel has been misled as to the result which might waiving jury (People occur from trial Golston, 538-539 83, 375 ; P.2d [3] [25 51] People Langdon, 52 Cal.2d 303]), [2] [341 shows that the trial record court nevertheless went to explain great lengths consequences nature of such a waiver. In addition, in several in paraphrased present stances the court’s statement to the mat simpler language. ter even *5 if he numerous times judge asked him, and defendant re given to explanations the understood acknowledged that his did and also replied that he peatedly hearing him the explained them to before fully attorney had jury trial. waived a which he transcript quoted in the excerpt reporter’s from clear presented in such matter that shows footnote1 “in the borderline men- language one and concise that even intelligence” dull groups” “of normal or one tal defective rights were what his presumed to have understood must be jury trial, 1During hearing waive a on motion to following together dele in this manner indicate [ ] occurred [Brackets tions] : regard your Lookadoo, you The Court: Mr. heard counsel’s remarks request, to to the waive insanity]. has in this matter [motions indicated which been made jury guilty by plea reason a and withdraw defendant’s of not you Have not? Tes, The Defendant: sir. you join request? The Court: And in that do Tes, The Defendant: sir. you you con- The Court: I that do have a want to understand [] [] right your guilt question and the other issues stitutional to have by your jury. that, pleas, by raised a Tou understand are do determined you? defender, representing I think Mr. Stone don’t defendant]: [Public May you saying. paraphrase I the Court? he understands what are The Court : Please do. right your Judge says, you What the legal to Mr. Stone: What the have a have by jury. Judge asking your if it is desire tried a is is case to [] your by Judge, sitting jury? up have ease tried there without a Tes, The Defendant: The Court : That is Tour Honor. your wish, ? Mr. Lookadoo Tes, The Defendant: Tour Honor. asking ago, you I moment under- The Court: What was a you jurors. you right, right by 12 have a have a to have it decided stand jurors you saying? sit in the see what I am Tou could have had Do jury your guilt [] and make a determination of or innocence. box [] The Defendant: Tes. [] you just trying get understand I am it clear that [] The Court: to your rights your request. I it. I want realize I understand what you were. trying get you. you understand what I am Do to know across rights your were? what The Defendant: The Court : I Tes. jury trial, guess a but I man can waive his you they you what waive it. wanted understand were before May again paraphrase? Mr. Stone: I The Court: Tes. Mr. Stone: saying Judge says you "waive,” When means are jury,” you say you by jury. a If "I want don’t want this case tried a waive,” course, you get jury, you say, is a "I which will or can ’ ’ ‘ ‘ way legal saying, it, it. I know I can but I don’t want you The Court: Do understand now? Tes, Defendant: sir. The The Court: What saying you asking you are is I are am now—what you having jury issues, but want hear the not desirous of trial various your pleasure? judge it, to hear is gave comprehension clear an indication of as when de- did. fendant circumstances, properly accepted the trial court
Under defendant’s waiver. finding premeditated trial court’s That Second. murder was erroneous in the evidence view of defendant’s mental condition. The Defendant The Court : Yes. do ? : Is that what want to The Defendant Yes. : by doing, your guilt The Court: You understand issue of so charge against made in- innocence under which has been going judge. judge a trial One hear and dictment will be heard decide question. that? understand Do *6 The Defendant: Yes. [] your jury respect plan The Court: the it to the is to waive with [] phase penalty trial? this Yes, The Defendant: Your Honor. say, might Attorney] if Mr. Wolfe I the waives : [District by jury jury 190.1, guilt phase, a cannot tried on on the under be a penalty phase. the any Dine, The Court: doubt in Mr. Lookadoo’s but I don’t want you jury mind, a on You understand when waive or his mind. counsel's jury you waiving guilt phase trial in con- are a the nection with that likewise [] [] you imposed might penalty if are be found that the [] you guilty. that? Do understand Yes, sir. The Defendant: The you say you waiving jury, by are Court: the You understand [] judge hearing judge. going the The trial tried a to have the case might imposed in going penalty this case be decide what case is also to you guilty. found in the event are you that? Do understand May him? I ask Mr. Stone: you may. Yes, Court: The judge you going trial Mr. Stone Do : understand the is to decide the you you your guilty? question penalty Do ease if are found under- that? stand Yes, sir. The Defendant: you you Lastly, right. Let Court: All ask this: do under- The me against presently you, charge is made the of the which nature stand that You what degree you charged first murder this ease? with the indictment particular offense, penalties involved this the understand that penalties they you are? understand what the are? Do Yes, death Defendant: or life. The The Court: could, you if the Court [] aware the fact that Are [] you you guilty, you to Do death. understand sentence [] found the Court that? Yes, sir. Defendant: The The you that? understand Court: Do Defendant Yes. The : alternate, Court could you as an The Court: Do also understand you imprisonment. that? Do understand impose life Yes, sir. Defendant: The questions you is asking I [] these I am Court : reason The The your saying, respect to means with you this all what to understand want it, judge. I take try I am satisfied.” willing it a trial with “I am to Mr. Lookadoo. gone detail with you this in some over have Mr. Stone degree first This contention is likewise without merit. The theory is warranted the homi- murder conviction on robbery. perpetration of a The cide was committed robbed the leaves doubt that defendant victim evidence no perpetration him in robbery. and killed of the felony-murder Under rule of section 189 of the killing Code, perpetration a committed in Penal of, or attempt perpetrate, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, may any hem, punishable or act under section 288 is murder of the degree. killing This first is true whether is wilful, delib premeditated merely erate, and or accidental and whether or robbery. 431] 897].) ; People Morlock, 46 killing (People planned Cheary, 48 Cal.2d part commission of the [13] [309 [6] P.2d thoroughly. Mb. Stone: Very your You talked with counsel? Court: The Defendant: Yes. explained you? you The Court: Has he all of this to Do feel he has? Defendant : Yes. you you The Court: Do feel understand? Yes, sir. The Defendant : right. Now, lastly, you any- The Court: All let me ask this: Has any you body promises any menace, kind to at all? Has made [] anything pressures you or coercions or offers or else been made jury trial, you you say, that has caused to induce am any waive “I [] judge”? try anybody you going this case with Has made [] try judge jury, promises case before rather than a get special going treatment? some are The Defendant: sir. No, going Or said there was to be some result special The Court: forth- coming in this Has done that? anybody ease. The Defendant: sir. No, prejudge understand? I am not here to it. you clearly The Court: Do nothing I facts of the but want to understand ease, I know about *7 if concerned made terribly anybody any representa- court could be this asking jury judge going not for the trial the is tions to at all you — going get go- or I Therefore I am not to death am ‘ ‘ the get try ease, to — — ing a life imprisonment, you or” or has do understand that? I don’t know. Mr. Stone: —you you may paraphrase it. All The Court : asking, anybody, investigator, judge is has or : What the Mr. Stone you try judge anybody promises the case before the made specific promised jury there will be some result on either without penalty ? guilt innocence or Defendant: sir. No, no, right. it then that as far as you are, you know, All I take The Court : waiving jury to a voluntarily your and now, freely here you as sit guilt sanity of and question penalty. and the as to the issue both trial, Is that correct? sir. Yes, Defendant: objection, Your Honor. I have no [ ] Mr. Wolfe: as either of sit here now, know any fact, Do you The Court: jury respecting ought the waiver the to the Court disclosed feel to be
315 felony-murder rule, independent however, of the the Even adequate support finds degree conviction the murder first premedi- committed deliberate theory that defendant tated ments of deliberation [2] [5 killing. As Cal.Rptr. stated 573, People Cartier, 353 v. premeditation may P.2d 53] : 54 “The Cal.2d necessary 300, be inferred 305-306 ele from reasonable within ing, as well evidence also 30, 401 P.2d competent to show deliberation Cal.Rptr. 167, 358P.2d People Hillery, proof Evidence is province foundation as the circumstances v. 382]; such facts in law People Robillard, for such an the trier of 62 insufficient, the matter is circumstances and circumstances as will furnish a Cal.2d 295, 83 A.L.R.2d v. before and after the 692, 703 inference, and fact premeditation. at 55 to determine.” [7] Cal.2d 1086].) time of [44 exclusively 88, where the (People killing, 95 (See kill [5] Cal.Rptr. 330, 401 P.2d Sears, 62 [6] [44 v. People Caritativo, 46 Cal.2d P.2d 938]; 513].) v. [4] [292 employed accomplish and means The manner important determining killing are also considerations (People Guldbrandsen, 35 Cal.2d degree of murder. ; People Steward, 156 Cal.App.2d P.2d 977] [3] [218 806].) 177, 184 [7] [318 dispassion coldly, shows that defendant The record mercy murdered his victim. As ately, and without herein- apartment indicated, newly with his defendant left above purchased .22 automatic rifle and to the caliber went service operated the victim at a time when other customers station were purchased unlikely be there. He a dollar’s worth of with defendant asked him gasoline. The victim chatted gasoline car, put his children were. After how cigarettes. some When the victim went asked for defendant car, inside reached package, inside to obtain car, in the of the back from the floorboards took rifle going inside, the victim he was he told him. followed Once any way trial, Court effect on the decision this which could request? grant the knowledge. : Mb. Stone I have no anything 9 Court : know of The Mr. Wolee: The Court: Under Bo nothing. I know of approve circumstances, Court will those requested. jury That motion ease of a trial as the entire waiver request granted of the defendant. be then will *8 him, rob and when the victim turned, defendant started shoot- ing. shells, He all six shot four bullets striking the victim. When the victim did not fall and reached for the rifle, defend- ant struck him with it. The victim slumped then floor, to the poured gasoline and defendant him, over took the contents of register, gasoline the cash lit the on the body, victim’s and fled. There is in no merit argument in view of his mental condition the doctrine responsibil- of “diminished ity” should be a and factor that thus the evidence is insuffi- premeditation. cient to show deliberation and A claim of diminished responsibility is defensive matter and must be raised the defendant in the trial on guilt. (See People the issue his Henderson, 60 Cal.2d [5, 490-491 77, 386 677].) 6] present case, no entitling evidence defendant rely on such during defense was guilt phase. introduced reports experts apparently the medical relied on during penalty phase. were introduced Accord ingly, inapplicable the doctrine is here. assuming, Even however, reports that the medical were in- guilt they troduced phase, support would not de- reports fendant’s contention.2 and Such the reasonable infer- following: 2Tke report of Dr. Toller reveals the “On direct examina tion he is found to be contact with his he knows environment, charges against nature of the him. . . . ( ( blocking “He think thought could and was no quickly easily, there thinking. or autistic There were no delusions or hallucinations. “His memory for remote events was he could remember sharp, dates given intelligence and names. He was two tests and scored an I.Q. 75-82. general knowledge “On the Bellvue Verbal test, deficiencies were highest and abstraction. He scored arithmetical comprehension, rea- ’ ’ soning and retention. following is of Dr. pertinent portion O’Brien’s report: “Upon X found interview, the defendant to be an well-nourished ambulant, and age white developed who to be about his stated of 22 male, appeared years. He was and clean in neat personal appearance attire quiet, serious manner. He understood cooperative, questions readily and to them responded promptly, coherently, relevantly, ade- quately, when concerned the crime. To such a except question ques- nothing ‘I tion, responded, don’t know about because I did not do it, it. tell me I shot They and burned that’s all I somebody him; know about it.’ ( ( throughout normally “The defendant was quiet composed intelligence. interview. He is estimated to be of dull normal He did not insanity. manifest unusual ideas or beliefs or other evidences of His were coherent and relevant and without evidence of dis- responses thought order He understands the nature and the processes. quality charged, wrong of the offense it would commit with which he be support the conclusion that drawn therefrom be enees defendant capacity possessed sufficient mental to commit *9 and, premeditated accordingly, murder would and deliberate respon- rely doctrine of diminished on the him to not entitle sibility. received, improperly were Ms statements Third. That evidence. custody defendant was that while The record shows Hall, charge, Sergeant of the Stanis- Bakersfield on another jail office, County County to the Kern laus sheriff’s went killing In- in the question him his involvement Mr. about man. Sergeant Hall him defendant, told questioning Before any attorney and did not have to make had a an he so, and police if he did not desire to do statement to the ‘‘ ’’ said, I about that. defendant know interrogation room, taken to a Defendant was then small Kilroy sitting. Sergeant As Hall and where Lieutenant room, Sergeant Hall told lieutenant defendant entered rights his and that defend- that he had advised defendant of Kilroy ant had stated he knew about them. Lieutenant said defendant, Leo, go this, “Ton want to remember we ’’ along, and nodded in an affirmative manner. defendant 2:10 p.m., with defendant commenced interview about questioned a o’clock, and he was until 3 at which time 15- minute recess was taken when defendant indicated he wanted During question- drink use wished to the restroom. ing, defendant denied involvement in the crime. interrogation When was resumed at 3:15, defendant said he would like attorney to confer with an before he made statement. He was asked if he planned, being after returned Modesto, private attorney obtain or to utilize the serv- public ices defender, and he said he probably would public utilize the services of the defender. He was asked if he particular attorney had a County in Kern he wanted to call call, or have the officers attorney and he said that he did not have an any attorney and did not know to contact. There was no refusal the officersto call an attorney, and Sergeant Hall testified that prohibited defendant was not contacting attorney from an was not told no such, act, having so, and that in the event he is convicted of done punishment. will be liable to He understands the function of defense cooperate counsel and would be able to with such counsel in his own de- my opinion legally time, fense. was It is that he is sane at this and that he ’ ’ legally alleged sane at the time of his commission of the offense. contacted him until
would be after he had talked with the officers. questioned approximately The officers defendant until 4:10 during p.m., voluntarily time which talked with incriminating the officers but made no admissions or state- ments. terminated,
As the interview defendant stated that he cell, would like to return to his so that he think over, could it requested him, and he that the officers obtain for from his property County pictures Kern jail, of his children. This was done. Almost three later, again brought hours defendant was interrogation room. At that time he said he talk wanted to
with making his mother before statement. officers said it should be decision that his could mother not make They argument decision for used a similar him. when he said would talk like to with wife and his father. Thereafter, questioning resumed, this inter- eventually view defendant killed Mr. Inman. had confessed that he robbed *10 following day. Defendant was returned to Modesto the On way, voluntarily he made another confession to the officers transporting him. Modesto, conferring after with his mother for about an hour, lengthy defendant made a statement, tape which was recorded. At that following time the proceedings occurred: Sergeant [By Now, Leo, as I told “Q. down in Hall] your rights Bakersfield about attorney to an and statement that, you and such my telling remember you that when we hallway came down the Yes, there? Q. A. sir. All right.
And understand that rights have these ? A. Yes, ’’ sir. proceeded Defendant thereafter to make his statement, with request attorney. no further for an Supreme The United recently States Court held, in Miran Arizona, da v. 384 436 U.S. L.Ed.2d 694, 86 1602, 10 [16 S.Ct. 974], A.L.R.3d that subjected before an accused is to interro gation, he must be informed in unequivocal clear and terms of right silent; to remain that warning must be accom panied explanation an anything said can be used against in court; him that he must clearly also be informed right that he has attorney to consult with an and to have attorney with him interrogation and that if he is indigent, attorney appointed an represent will be him if
319 any manner, either indicates if accused desired; that silent, wants to remain that he during questioning, to or prior that he that if he states cease; interrogation must at- until an interrogation must cease attorney, an wishes present. torney is attorney right an had a that he advised was Defendant police if he statement to make did not have to and did warning given that the so, it clear but is not want to do ease and required by the Miranda short of that now him fell in- ease defendant’s in that the rule established that under he said he wanted to ceased when terrogation should have attorney giving a statement. an before talk with final was not be Although conviction Illinois, 378 478 v. U.S. decision in Escobedo [12 fore the deci began before the 1758], 84 his trial S.Ct. L.Ed.2d the benefit Accordingly, he is entitled to Miranda. sion entitled to the Escobedo, but is not laid down the rules (People Rollins, 65 holding in benefit of Miranda. Cal.Rptr. 293, 221].) 681 423 Cal.2d [56 rules, necessary it the Escobedo was Under warning advice that he entitled to defendant include present interrogation if attorney at his and that to have an appointed indigent, attorney for him de an would be People v. (Escobedo Illinois, supra, 478; sired. U.S. 361].) Dorado, 398 P.2d Likewise, is of the rule not entitled to benefit attorney, interroga- an accused states he wishes an once attorney present. However, tion must until an is cease custody requested while he was and while the police interrogations carrying process that lent were out eliciting incriminating statements, itself to therefore attorney present under Escobedo have an he was entitled to pp. 484-487) interrogation (378 at the unless he had U.S. (p. 14). We must therefore deter- waived the fn. place. mine whether waiver took Defendant generally also entitled to raise *11 question (Johnson of the voluntariness of his v. confession. Jersey, 719, New 384 U.S. 730 L.Ed.2d 86 S.Ct. [16 1772].) right have held that the denial We of the an attorney by neglect suspect’s request or evasion an for attorney just as much a constitutional violation as a denial rejection. by explicit (People Anderson, 63 361- 320 Luker, [9] 63 Cal.2d [46 Cal.Rptr. 763, present ease, however, Cal.Rptr. 209, 43]; the officers did not 407 P.2d see also People 9].) deny request by explicit rejection or evasion neglect. contrary, On they record shows that asked any attorney County
him if in there Kern he wanted to call him, or have them call for and he told them did he not any attorney know They then ques contact. continued to tion during an hour, for additional which time he gave freely his questions, maintaining answers to their throughout. innocence then, request, Defendant was at his allowed to return to his cell to think over, any ques it and he was asked further period tions ample of almost three hours. This was time " thought for defendant to have it over.” Under the circum making stances, subsequently having a confession without again requested attorney, an he must be deemed to have waived attorney voluntarily to an confessed.3 respect attorney, Sergeant request 3With to defendant’s for an Hall testified, as follows: any Did Mr. Lookadoo [] [defendant] time The Court: interrogation you referring to, request are now ever make a attorney attorney? see an or contact an attorney A. He said that he would to confer like with an before he any made statement. you The Court : He A. Xbelieve ? told that at that time yes. interview, 3 and 4:10 between the [] you say response The Court: And did in to that? what attorney A. asked if had We an retained Bakersfield. you say? The Court: And what else did “No,” replied A. And he—to that he and we asked him then when Modesto, planned obtaining attorney, took him we back to he had on or if he would utilize the services of the Public Defender. any particular request any par- he make talk Court: Did The attorney ticular at that time Bakersfield? No, A. he did not. merely attorney Court: He said would like to talk to the The be- fore he made a statement? Yes, A. this is true. you anything response request? The further Court: Did do to that particular attorney him if A. We asked he had that he wanted to call, or us contact. you you The Court: Did tell him that wouldn’t contact you until talked to him? after Definitely A. not. And other way—I did realize he was incar- Court: way prohibit cerated, contacting him from but did an at- torney? No, A. sir. particular time I take it that then Court: And at con- interrogate him, interrogation both after the first and then tinued beginning 4:10, you interrogate him, at 3:15 until continued to is that correct? *12 by That evidence statements him a made to Fourth. fel- jail improperly low inmate at the admitted. Wayne Lynn testified that Grider he confined jail County at the defendant was held there; Stanislaus time A. Yes. voluntarily you And did he talk with at that time? Court: yes. voluntarily during period, us A. He talked to all attorney to talk The Court: When he said that he wanted with an [] statement, respect happened what after that to before he made a what was he continued to talk to said, you apparently had now indicated to the Court that he that you, though said that wanted see an even he to attorney you? before he talked to you in at no he I think I followed that he time stated that wanted A. any with us. We did not force conversation to no more conversation have interview, Honor, any part him, and as our on Your our interview P.M., just go prior 4:10 Leo stated that he would like to to terminated back in, had been so that he could think this over. the cell that he to right, proceed. The Court: All attorney] permitted go Wolfe, [By : he district Was then to Mr. Q. think it over? back to his cell and get couple pictures Yes, he would like to of his back to his said that A. he County Jail, go property in the Kern from his children cell and for an hour or so. think this over permitted to do so? Was he Q. property got pictures Yes, out of his children of his A. we him. you 4:10, next see the Defendant? when did And after Q. 6:52 [] A. P.M. your knowledge request did Mr. Lookadoo make a Court: To [] attorney anything prior call, phone or or call an to the time to make a that evening? you 6:52 in at had the conversation No, sir, he did not. A. any desires, saying express other than that he Did he The Court: attorney made a statement? He before he told talk to an would like to you this, is correct? that attorney. say this, Yes, talk that he wanted to to an [] A. he did you gather—you said, I “Do have that time do And at The Court: attorney here?”? an attorney County in Bakersfield or Kern if he had an him A. We asked contact. to that he wanted say response that? to did he And what Q. attorney. any No, He didn’t know not an that he did he said A. attorney [] to contact. speaking time, this con- now connection with I am At that Q. attorney, request concerning that he wanted to for an versation you to, expressed attorney, desire did where talk with any kind, representations him to indications or then make time attorney you you after talk to an we “Well, can to to talk we want say anything you him? you.’’ like that Did talk with attorney sir, not—no, talk to an after No, sir, that could A. him, no, make that statement. We did not sir. talked to we informed, you having have indicated indicated gather been that I And do Q. having counsel, rights and he him of his informed that to ment, he made a state- before talk to an like to he would that is, trying get in on fill the Court guess can I am I what particular that indicated time that anything said at that Defendant go willing talk ahead and with part he was that on an indication approached such time
that him in the exer- thought him cise area and asked what he of defendant’s “beating” case; chances he told defendant he did what defendant was in for; not even know that defend- proceeded tell He then ant him. testified as to certain de- him tails related to defendant. suggested testified that no one had
Mr. Grider that he talk with defendant and conversation was started de- representative He said fendant himself. from the dis- *13 talking attorney’s trict office had seen him with who defend- anything ant asked him if knew he defendant or about his and that he then told him of the conversation. case contends that the evidence his Defendant state inadmissible, ments Mr. was because the Grider confessions police having he made to the were inadmissible due to his deprived pretrial stage of counsel at critical of his been case, and his statements to Mr. were made in a continu Grider ing pattern “talking” crime, about initiated interrogation. police place, pointed above, In first as out had police, waived his he to counsel before confessed to the police therefore and his confessions to the were admissible. however, that such assuming, Even confessions were inad- missible, defendant’s statements to Mr. were made Grider though or indicated that he attorney, even he had no you, wanted requested you feel, to talk that that would cause time, ’ go right, Was all will and talk with the defendant.’ “Well, we ahead go talk to voluntarily this he wanted to ahead and merely because ? that statement and indicated that he would talk to spite got When we to the freely. A. his answer to our came Yes, questions asking this He made him about he denied homicide, part. point talk his time that he wanted to some requests period mother before he talked further to us. [] you say that? The Court: And what did in any him would that make statement A. We asked what difference gave tell own tell us or would not us was his that he what he was to us, something would be his decision, that we felt and this was decision, this for him. mother eouldn’t make decision say response to that? did he The Court: And what like to talk to his and to his mother, that he would still A. He stated that he would like to talk he indicated children, too, and see his wife, also. father, to that? Court: Do you response recall then what said again this was a decision Here we went back to point A. that he would talk to us was a decision to us or not he talked whether a decision not to be left to his up that we—this was have to make, or wife. father say response to that? he The Court: What did the extent of the conversation be- this was about To these A. points, told us that he had shot and he eventually of time, tween this period Inman. Mr. appointed him after the court had counsel for and under entirely compelling circumstances free influence some- present police interrogation. result, in a As a it is clear times given atmosphere were not in the that the statements con- Accordingly, demned Escobedo Miranda. evidence of properly the statements was admitted. prejudicial That trial court Fifth. committed error dur- ing penalty trial.
Defendant contends that trial court abused its imposing penalty. support In the death discretion of this proposition argues finding that the of premeditation, on alleges imposition penalty based, which of the death argument, This it was erroneous. has been demonstrated above,is without merit. argues gave further Defendant the court no in given to, weight consideration placed dication that argument
upon, his mental condition. This is likewise without merit. Although, above, as stated is no basis in there the record applying the doctrine of “diminished responsibility,” it carefully that the trial court clear considered the evidence mental and properly
of defendant’s condition exercised its discretion. giving decision, its the court stated: “The Court has carefully
endeavored to arguments presented consider all the evidence and the penalty imposed to what should be *14 upon the Defendant for the crime of in murder the first degree. . . . ( < apparent is unmindful “. . . The Court of the lack of high intelligence, or unfortunate economic circumstances of the law this Defendant. But of this land does not authorize or commission of such a crime condone the as here involved be- ’’ background. social cause of economicor during proceedings on the Also, motion for a new trial the thought arguments judge said, “I have about the you which made this morning”; and the [defendant’s counsel] record during morning proceedings that the shows sel defendant’s coun- argued length in that view of at defendant’s mental condi- finding evidence sustain a premedita- tion there no to of penalty imposed.4 and the death should not be tion morning proceedings of are from quoted 4Part the the transcript: Tour Mb. Stone: I submit to Honor that [ ] there is no evidence to finding of that nature. sustain of the premeditation first instance during judge proceedings on pointed out the The also killing that had occurred for new trial motion said: “And I robbery, an armed and want the course of did it clear also that this consider circum- make Court defendant, circumstances under which he stances of this thing grew up, this, is that this is not a circumstance just peculiar is to this defendant. are lots that There poor background in lived rather people who have have grown up good, in community, solid citizens this become just spite in I of unfortunate economic circumstances. can’t long help the circumstances here that as but feel under as we state, in if penalty anything, the death this it is to mean people majority people and if the will of the and the of the it, it, and who want want to continue to have until some other penalty people extreme or method is devised this planning this defendant is a child. is not mentally capable He that far ahead. [.] young this [ ] this defendant, man with a child’s mind acted like [ ] throughout. a child [] Now, when we wish continue on this matter of con- premeditation, jargon sider the mentality. He is lan- popular popular guage, a moron. report of Dr. [a Bramwell who exam- psychiatrist ined defendant an at the Juvenile Hall when he was not quite 16] indicates examining of 65 I.Q. shows an [The I.Q. 69.] and the two report psychiatrists indicate around 75. Toller's shows that de- [Dr. report intelligence given fendant scored an of “75-82” I.Q. on the tests him.] age age age mental His is well under [] at which a person be executed in state. I may this realize that the law [] refers age chrono- logical age, but this nevertheless defendant’s mental should have bearing some his criminal upon at [] responsibility as some- least.insofar thing grave so penalty is involved. capital [ ] The Court : think you Do is a [] there difference this particular stranger go gasoline case and ease where a perfect would into the robbing station for the Mr. Inman? purpose Stone : Mr. Tour I No, Honor, do not. The Court: think You don’t there is difference at all? No, you mentality Stone: if Mr. consider the of this defendant. The Court: You don’t think that the defendant was acquainted with Inman? Mr. Yes, was, obviously. Mr. Stone: The Court: Do you think that this man knew the defendant? Mr. Stone: Yes. Court : think And that he went there purpose robbing taking gun Mr. that he Inman, must also have known, calculatingly go into the with place and after he had Mr. Inman him, get cigarettes some do think that time when he [] went inside that order station, effectuate a robbery, this defendant knew he had kill Mr. Inman to it? do Mr. Stone : No. The Court disagree, : I Well, where because I think evidence shows fact, the what and I am convinced that absolutely this is this defendant believed. [] *15 Mr. Stone: holding the [] Apparently Court is man this mentally dealing the same level of that is responsibility in accustomed with in everyday life. people but to allow simply has no alternative that this Court state, the circumstances. to stand under penalty the questions that the say now, if were there “I want great be merci- say, ‘Pine, and it sit Court were to here people,’ and all of great other to be of ful, it is considerate facts of this time, least under must a at this, there come my judgment cannot particular in which this Court case judge case, in this duty as a trial my I think is abdicate what I say that can case, and and of this and the facts evidence particular sen- modify this mercy in kindness name of ’’ tence. clearly show that he conscientious- judge's statements The capacity as the penalty in his officer of the ly selected power duty. It that and is clear People charged with that duty and discretion as the trier of fact. properly exercised Cal.Rptr. 324, 328 Lindsey, 56 (See People v. Cal.2d [2] [14 Cartier, People supra, ; P.2d 910] 53].) 573, 353 311-313 [8] [5 doing Mr. and I don’t want that, Stone, I am not Court: No, Do not have to look at the actual to do this: only that. I want do light done, of what was and cal- and evidence that was presented, doing of that which he did as was as capable culate that the defendant else. anybody talking about on but we are what went yes, Well, capable, Mr. Stone: attempting You to determine what of it. are mind, purpose judge goes on in mind the basis of what you in this on went on childish intelligent average with deal whom person rather the minds of day day. from [] to show that appears at the time the evidence Court: [] Look [] morning in the when ] 6:40 or 6:50 [ around 6:00, it somewhere occurred, pulling highly anyone else from the unlikely standpoint discovery example. for station, into waiting, and the effect of the total scheme if look at [] thing it was it [] which done, manner done, that was very done with deliberation [] and calculation. the defendant’s men- further that say I like to Stone: Mr. would [] I that this did commit—and feel crime that he tality, type because this a nature, in an incident word, to use the was—I hesitate such horrible risk crime to take silly a foolish—a crime, childish Court feels that the defendant dollars that or four hundred three thought was there. robbery elsewhere, committed a could have the defendant Certainly say attempt with no truthfully I can known, where he was mentality of subnormal a only moron, person that a humor, sarcasm or A of anywhere nature. person a of this robbery would have committed intelligence, inclined and wanted criminally so he were adequate near gas how many robbed—I don’t know easily could station, to rob a with an gas equal a hundred, but there must be area, in the stations I feel the Court getting so that money, the same amount chance of again, committed would have subnormal mentally person only might Your Honor, only also, I add this robbery nature, made the confessions would have mentality of subnormal childish person and others []. fellow prisoner] to Grider [a man had made this *16 326 prejudicial That trial committed the court Sixth. power considering pardoning the the Governor
error in of Supreme reviewing impos the when Court and the function of ing penalty. the death is likewise devoid of merit. Defendant This contention prejudicial by placing error argues that the court committed power great weight pardoning of on the the Governor the reviewing this court. function of judge trial fails show that the Initially, the record pardoning power of the Gover- weight” on the placed “great most, At he was review this court.5 and the automatic nor acknowledging and that even as that man is fallible the fact capable applying law, he was the as he was careful making an error. People Morse, 631 v. 60 Cal.2d Furthermore, [36 inapplicable case. This present 33], is the 388 P.2d degree penalty phase a first in the there held court give instruction, error to trial it was reversible murder permitted the argument, which allow evidence Authority Adult the possibility jury to consider grant parole to the defendant might future date at some sentence, whether and that given a life he were the ex- matter within parole is a granted prisoner be should not within the Authority and is the Adult pert judgment of province. jury’s jury, present no there was no case there In the concerning argument parole or other- improper instruction or wise. “Both statements tend this court said: case Morse they obligation; infuse jury’s both diminish the sense belong . do not there. . . factors the issue into directing these errors the atten- doubt that have no “We Authority, judge Adult roles of jury to the tion argument, and instruction in evidence Governor, by means of jury.” (Italics prejudicially influenced the case, instant 652.) p.at added.) (60 Cal.2d apply and unrealistic to the same unreasonable It be would judge posi- by reason of his reasoning trial court. to the things very that this court has aware of would be tion obligation. jury’s sense of to diminish held tend judge decision, trial stated: “For- time he announced 5At the Court, finality judgment its tunately, by this frailties of to the due State, Supreme of this after and the Governor Court law rests with ’ ’ review. careful
327 penalty- prejudicial error in the did not commit The court trial. its judg this court should exercise That Seventh. punishment. choice to the ment as has contention. This court uniform merit this There no penalty from death to life rejected requests to reduce ly penalty, to the choice of No error contributed imprisonment. has repeatedly held that trier of fact the sole and we have responsibility penalty select discretion to and absolute 63 (People Mitchell, Cal.2d degree murder. first People Howk, 211]; Cal.Rptr. 371, 409 P.2d [48 Cal.Rptr. 370, and cases 426] 699-701 [3-5] cited.) there judgment is affirmed. *17 J., J., Mosk, -Burke, J., Sullivan, and Traynor, J., C. con- curred. PETERS, I dissent. J. County in Kern arrested an was for offense defendant The The instant crime had occurred in involved. Stanis- not here Hall, County. Sergeant a law enforcement officer of
laus purpose to Bakersfield for County, came Stanislaus killing about here interrogating defendant involved. was called into the interroga- Hall arrived defendant When by questioned Hall and the other tion to be He room officers. attorney right right an and his to to of his remain was told vigorously interrogated 50 He then for minutes. silent. was complicity in consistently County the Stanislaus denied He interrogation a During called, this brief recess was murder. questioning was renewed. Defendant at that and then attorney making an he wanted before state- time stated ment. directly deny request police did not this The but had defendant he Bakersfield or asked private County and whether he intended to use a Kern County. public Upon attorney or the defender Stanislaus reply County receiving that defendant had no Kern law- public probably use yer defender, would the inter- deny continued, defendant rogation continued to com- He then plicity in murder. asked to be returned to his cell again matter over. After three hours he was think the immediately interrogation He told to the room. taken made a that before he statement he wanted to talk to officers him interrogating his that that mother. The officers told was 328 the decision was his alone. Then defend- necessary because
not wife, consult with his permission to or with his requested ant by arguments deny dissuaded the same used to father, but Thereafter, response his mother. further him access confessed. questioning he interrogation in entirety, its as we are
Looking at the re is inevitable that do, the conclusion the confession quired by secured evasion artifice and certain here involved philosophy the fundamental Esco behind ly in violation Illinois, 478 L.Ed.2d 84 1758], 378 U.S. S.Ct. [12 bedo Dorado, Cal.Rptr. 62 338 People v [42 361], P.2d dealing young man with a of limited police were intel- court-appoint- described young man who was ligence, a being intelligence” “dull normal as psychiatrists ed groups.” mental defective being “in the borderline Al- right his an attorney, was told of though defendant request for his one and continued failed to honor police right demanded the him. Then defendant to see interrogate wife, father, making his before mother, his further requests granting of these was avoided statements. specious arguments. directly falls within the rule stated factual situation This Anderson, 63 People Cal.2d stated that the defendant had re 43], the court There “police (p. 362) improperly counsel, and quested upon Although questioning him. the commence persisted immediately did not inquiry demand of the ment hap he could not remember what had counsel, but said thereby forfeit to counsel. did not he pened, Before incriminating statements asked counsel; gave questioning its because the lose request does force *18 right by counsel evasion or denial The continued. suspect’s request counsel constitutes no less neglect by explicit rejection. than a denial violation constitutional a Supreme held that Court de the United States Escobedo prearraignment during the ac uttered statements fendant’s if, into evidence at that stage be admitted cusatory cannot right to counsel. Since the denied has been stage, he request for counsel at the by ignoring police, deprived him of his constitutional accusatory stage, during that time elicited statements admission of counsel, Luker, People also v. (Italics added.) (See erroneous.” was 9].) Cal.Rptr. 209, 407 P.2d 464, 474 63 Cal.2d [47
329
apparent
interroga-
recognition
that the
majority,
The
proceeded
after defendant had made it
not
tion should
attorney
a
family
or member of his
clear that he wanted
consult, urge
waiver,
that there was a
because
parried
with whom
to talk after his demands
continued
were
quotation
Anderson, supra,
from
demon-
and
The
evaded.
permissible. Although
is
no
inference
defend-
strates
ant continued to
such
get
lawyer,
he
unable
talk after was
complicity,
then,
deny
and
when called back to
continued
room, made
clear that he did not want
interrogation
it
some member
his fam-
had consulted with
to talk until he
specious argu-
request
last
ily.
police parried the
The
family
his and that his
could
was
not
ment that
decision
that there was a waiver under such circum-
assist
To hold
him.
contrary
eases. A
to the decided
waiver must be
is
stances
(Carnley
Cochran,
v.
intelligently made.
369
knowingly and
contrary
70,
884].)
is also
82 S.Ct.
It
506 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
[8
theory
Dorado, supra.
of Escobedo
the fundamental
concept
progeny,
their
behind those eases and
numerous
basic
is that it is
unfair,
encourages
coercion,
to continue to
unfriendly atmosphere
layman in
interrogate a
clearly
stationhouse,
after he has
indicated
he does not
with an
or
talk until he has consulted
want to
request
may
family.
police,
made,
such
when
not
interrogate
knowing
makes
unless the accused
continue to
They
by specious
him
intelligent
dissuade
waiver.
cannot
interrogate him
arguments
continue to
with
evasive
eliciting incriminating
They must
the intent of
statements.
stop
request
interrogation.
grant his
clearly
admit
confession. Even if that
It
error to
was
(but
Payne Arkansas,
per se
see
reversible
v.
error were
;
78
v. Wain
975,
560
S.Ct.
Gideon
356
L.Ed.2d
U.S.
[2
844]
792,
799, 83
93 A.L.R
L.Ed.2d
wright, 372
335
S.Ct.
U.S.
[9
.
749, 47
Tumey Ohio,
v.
[Crim. Respondent, v. PEOPLE, Plaintiff JOHN THE Appellants. al., Defendants CHARLES, JR., et