People v. Sanchez

On February 9, 1946, defendant Sanchez admittedly killed Alejandro Garcia, concealed his body, and fled from the United States. Thereafter defendant was ap

It is the theory of the People that defendant murdered Garcia in the perpetration of robbery; it is the theory of defendant that he killed justifiably in self-defense or, at least, in such a frenzy of terror that the killing could be no more than murder of the second degree or voluntary manslaughter. No other explanation of, or reason for, the slaying is claimed. It is true that the charge to the jury contains many erroneous and irrelevant instructions which in other circumstances could require a reversal. However, the evidence (hereinafter related) amply justifies a finding that Garcia was murdered by defendant in the perpetration of a robbery; the jury were adequately instructed as to this phase of the case; and it does not appear that they were misled by other instructions or that errors complained of by defendant resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the judgment must be affirmed.

Defendant and Garcia were Mexican laborers who had worked on farms in the Imperial Valley. On the evening of Friday, February 8, 1946, they told the farmer by whom they had been employed that “They wanted to lay off . . . to go to Mexicali.” Each received his pay check, defendant’s being for the sum of $52.70 and Garcia’s for $77.80. The two men went to the cabin where they resided. This cabin contained two rooms, a kitchen and a bedroom; its single outside door opened from the kitchen. At about 4 or 5 o’clock on Saturday morning defendant killed Garcia with an axe, dragged his body to an outside toilet and concealed it beneath the toilet seat, washed some of the blood from the cabin, and fled to Mexico. Before he was killed, Garcia had, besides his pay cheek, “a good watch,” a pair of shoes and (according to defendant) a knife. When his body was discovered, about 8 or 9 o’clock on Saturday morning, none of these articles of personal property were on the body or in the cabin or its vicinity. Garcia’s pockets contained only 25 cents. His body bore five deep axe cuts which apparently had been inflicted in rapid succession: one across the small of the back, which went through his belt, through another belt which held a truss, and to the bone; one into the head, from which brain

Defendant cashed his pay cheek in a grocery store on Saturday morning before he left this country. Garcia’s pay check, endorsed “Garría” or perhaps “Garsia,” was also cashed at this store. In the opinion of a handwriting expert, the endorsement thereon was written by defendant. Exemplars of defendant’s handwriting made by him after his arrest similarly misspelled the name of deceased as “Garría” or as “Garsia.” Pay checks made and delivered to Garcia by a former employer and cashed prior to the dates involved herein were endorsed “Alejandro Garcia”; such latter endorsements, in the opinion of the handwriting expert, were not written by defendant. Defendant on cross-examination testified as follows:

“Q. Now, before you put—or at any time after you killed Alejandro Garcia, did you take anything from his clothes or from his body? A. No. I didn’t take anything.

“Q. I am showing you a check which is People’s Exhibit No. 1 [the pay check Garcia received the evening before he was killed], and ask you if you had that check in your possession that morning. A. No, sir. . . .

“Q. Did Garcia carry a watch? A. I don’t know. I never saw it if he did.”

The limited extent of these denials, and the fact that they were adduced only upon cross-examination, should be noted. Defendant did not deny that he endorsed or negotiated Garcia’s pay cheek nor did he claim that he formed the intent to and did take any articles of personal property from Garcia only after the latter’s death.

Defendant’s testimony as to the circumstances of the homicide is as follows: Prior to the day of the killing Garcia “got sore because I had to correct him for poor work . . . [F]rom that time on he did things that were not right, and I paid no attention to him.” On the morning of Saturday, February 9, Garcia, contrary to his custom, arose early and prepared coffee. Defendant wakened but did not arise. “I could see he had some bad intentions. And he turned out the light, and I had a cigarette lighted, and I put it out, and

Defendant complains that the charge as to self-defense does not include a correct instruction requested by him, or any instruction, embodying the principle that “A person in the exercise of his right of self-defense not only has a right to stand his ground and defend himself when attacked but he may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from danger.” (Italics added.) Such an instruction, it has been held, “clearly states the law on the subject.” (People v. Hatchett (1942), 56 Cal.App.2d 20 , 22 [ 132 P.2d 51 ].) It has been held that the substance of the requested instruction relative to the right to pursue an adversary as well as stand one’s ground is not adequately covered by instructions (given in the instant case) that in exercise of the right of self-defense one may repel force by force and may act upon apparent necessity (People v. Orosco (1925), 73 Cal.App. 580 , 598

Defendant complains of the refusal of the court to give the following instruction which he requested and which, he argues, was necessary to enlighten the jury in case they determined that defendant first killed justifiably and then decided to and did take the property of his victim: “If you believe from the evidence defendant killed in defense of his life, then notwithstanding the fact that you also find that defendant subsequently committed another offense you must acquit him.” Defendant is correct in his assertion that a killing which was justifiable cannot become criminal by virtue of subsequent conduct of the killer. But there is nothing in the instructions which could give a contrary impression and the defendant did not testify, nor is there other evidence to suggest, that he formed the intent to or did take any of Garcia’s property only after the latter’s death. He claimed only that he killed in actual self-defense or possibly in terror induced by Garcia’s asserted attack. No motivating cause for the killing other than defendant’s theories or the State’s theory of robbery can logically be gleaned from the evidence. The jury were told that “All murder . . . which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate . . . robbery ... is murder of the first degree” (Pen. Code, § 189) and that “Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear” (Pen. Code, § 211). It is clear from these instructions that to constitute the killing murder of the first degree because it was committed in the perpetration of robbery, the killer must, at the time of the killing, have had the purpose to rob (although not necessarily the purpose to kill), whereas, as the jury were told, in the case of a justifiable killing in self-defense defendant “must have acted under the influence of such fears [of great bodily harm] alone” (Pen. Code, § 198). In view of all the evidence and of the instructions which were given and which have been previously noticed, it is not reasonably conceivable that the jury could have believed, or had a reasonable doubt, that the defendant killed Garcia in self-defense or terror, and still have found the verdict of first degree murder. If they had had a reasonable doubt on the question of self-defense or killing in terror they must have either acquitted the defendant or found the homicide to be an offense less than first degree

Here, as in People v. Peterson (1946), 29 Cal.2d 69 , 78-79 [ 173 P.2d 11 ], “The court, in instructing the jury as to what constitutes murder Of the first degree (apparently inadvertently, in the light of its other instructions), erroneously included portions of disapproved former stock instructions declaring that ‘There are certain kinds of murder which carry with them conclusive evidence of premeditation . . . [etc.],’ and that a man ‘can premeditate, that is, think before doing the act, the moment he conceives the purpose.’ Each of these two former stock instructions has been often condemned. (People v. Bender (1945), 27 Cal.2d 164 , 182-185 [ 163 P.2d 8 ] ; People v. Valentine (1946), ... 28 Cal.2d 121 , 134, 135 [ 169 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Bernard (1946), . . . 28 Cal.2d 207 , 210-212 [ 169 P.2d 636 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1946), 29 Cal.2d 52 [ 172 P.2d 698 ].) In the present case they directly conflict with other, correct instructions which the court gave on the same subjects. ‘Inconsistent instructions have frequently been held to constitute reversible error where it was impossible to tell which of the conflicting rules was followed by the jury. [Citations.]’ (People v. Dail (1943), 22 Cal.2d 642 , 653 [ 140 P.2d 828 ].)” As shown above, there is evidence that defendant murdered in the perpetration of robbery. The instructions as to that phase of the case are not incorrect although unnecessarily repetitious, and it does not appear that the instructions as a whole so misled the jury that their conclusion that defendant is guilty of first degree murder is based on a finding not that the murder was committed in the perpetration of robbery, but that defendant “premeditated” before killing the moment he conceived the purpose to kill.

The jury were correctly instructed in the language of section 1096 of the Penal Code concerning presumption of innocence and the definition of reasonable doubt. Other portions of the charge as to reasonable doubt include a lengthy instruction which commences as follows: “[I]f you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that the defendant . . . did, unlawfully and with deliberate, willful, intentional premeditation and with felonious intent kill the deceased . . . and that said killing was done with malice aforethought and was not justifiable under

Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to give an instruction, requested by him, that “In a trial for murder it is not necessary for the defendant to establish self defense by evidence sufficient to satisfy the jury that the self defense was true, but if the evidence is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was justified, then he is entitled to an acquittal.” This proposed instruction correctly states the law and, where the evidence warrants submitting the issue to the jury, should be given. (See People v. Kane (1946), 27 Cal.2d 693 , 701 [ 166 P.2d 285 ]; see, also, People v. Roe (1922), 189 Cal. 548 , 565 [ 209 P. 560 ]; People v. Albertson (1944), 23 Cal.2d 550 [ 145 P.2d 7 ], at p. 587 of concurring opinion; 13 Cal.Jur. 737, § 104.) However, its principle was repeatedly brought to the attention of the jury for, as above indicated, they were told as to murder of the first degree, again as to murder of the second degree, and again as to manslaughter, that to warrant a verdict of

The jury were told in the language of section 192 of the Penal Code that involuntary manslaughter “is the unlawful killing of a human being, without malice ... in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.” Defendant relies upon People v. Hatchett (1944), 63 Cal.App.2d 144 , 161 [ 146 P.2d 469 ], where it is said that by this instruction the jury were told that “the act of shooting, if believed lawful [in self-defense], might constitute the offense of manslaughter if it was done in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. Any such theory of guilt would have been entirely unsupported by the evidence or any legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom. The instruction clearly tended to divert the minds of the jury from the sole question whether defendant acted reasonably and in good faith in defending herself from a felonious attack and may well have operated to her prejudice.” The People rely upon People v. Hashaway (1945), 67 Cal.App.2d 554 , 569 [ 155 P.2d 101 ], and People v. Chapman (1946), 76 Cal.App.2d 651 , 662 [ 173 P.2d 860 ], In those cases it is said that because the defendant was charged with murder, and involuntary manslaughter “as a matter of law” was “involved” in such charge, it was proper to instruct concerning involuntary manslaughter. These statements are not correct and are disapproved. The charge to the jury in a homicide case should comprise instructions on the law applicable to issues raised by the evidence, not a dissertation on all the classes of homicide known to the law. It is error to give an instruction which correctly states a principle of law which has no application to the facts of the case. (People v. Roe (1922), supra, 189 Cal. 548 , 565; People v. Silver (1940), 16 Cal.2d 714 , 722 [ 108 P.2d 4 ].). We agree with defendant that a trial judge should be diligent in refraining from burdening the jury and the record with inapplicable instructions and in avoiding unnec

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred to his prejudice when, on the last day of trial, it put Deputy Sheriff Bridwell in charge of the jury while they lunched and while they retired to consider their verdict. Bridwell was active in the investigation conducted after the body of deceased was found and was an important prosecution witness. Defendant concedes that there is no showing that Bridwell was actually prejudiced against defendant but urges that the officer “was biased against the defendant as a matter of law” and placing the jury in his charge gave “an unwarranted weight to the state’s evidence.” No objection was made at the time Bridwell was sworn to take charge of the jury. The People concede, as indeed they must, that it was “poor practice and poor judgment” to have placed Bridwell in charge of the jury but urge that the mere fact of such “poor practice,” without timely objection thereto and without any showing of actual prejudice, is not ground for reversal. It must be recognized that the act complained of, under other circumstances,'could well amount to worse than “poor practice.” Where it was proved that the sheriff because of bias was disqualified to summon a jury (Pen. Code, § 1064), it was held to be prejudicial error to entrust the jury to his care, over defendant’s objection, when it retired to deliberate. (People v. Fellows (1898), 122 Cal. 233 , 238 [ 54 P. 830 ].) On the other hand, it has been held that it was not ground for reversal that a jury was placed in charge of an officer who was technically disqualified or even actually biased, where no timely objection was made and there was no showing of actual prejudice to defendant. (People v. Babcock (1911), 160 Cal. 537 , 546 [ 117 P. 549 ]; People v. Nakis

Defendant also contends that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to allow him to impeach the witness Escalera, who had acted as interpreter when defendant was first interviewed by the district attorney and who testified to the substance of the statement made by defendant at that time. On cross-examination Escalera was asked, “What was your occupation at the time you did the interpreting?” The People’s objection to the question was sustained. Defendant’s counsel argued that “under the circumstances I think the jurors might imply a certain amount of prejudice, or bias in the matter.” According to his briefs defendant’s counsel by this question sought to show that Escalera, at the time he interpreted, was a prisoner in the county jail and had an application for parole pending before the county parole board. Such board consisted of the district attorney, the sheriff and a chief of police; Escalera had been prosecuted by the deputy district attorney who prosecuted this case, before the judge who tried this case; Escalera was paroled after he interpreted defendant’s statement and was still on parole at the time he testified. These facts might, in the opinion of a jury, show a reasonable basis for an inference that the translation and the testimony of Escalera were influenced by a hope that he would be leniently treated by the officials if he aided in the conviction of defendant. (People v. Robles (1868), 34 Cal. 591 , 594; People v. Pantages (1931), 212 Cal. 237 , 253-259 [ 297 P. 890 ] and cases there cited.) If Escalera had testified to a statement by defendant which differed disadvantageously in any material respect from defendant’s testimony at the trial, then defendant might have substantial cause to complain of refusal to permit him to impeach Escalera by showing his possible motive. (Although the transcript does not show that a specific offer of proof was

After examination of the entire cause we have concluded that the errors complained of by defendant have not resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4½.) For this reason the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., concurred.