People v. Corwin

California Supreme Court Jun 24, 1959 No. Crim. 6395Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence of a defendant's post-arrest statements is admissible during the penalty phase of a bifurcated trial under Penal Code section 190.1, and that the prosecution may properly open and close arguments during that phase.

Issues

Whether a conversation between a defendant and a deputy sheriff during the guilt phase is admissible during the penalty phase.
Whether the prosecution is entitled to open and close the arguments to the jury during the penalty phase of a bifurcated trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Unquestionably, the broad language of section 190.1 sustains the propriety of the court’s ruling admitting the conversation as relevant evidence on the trial of the penalty issue.”

“Likewise there appears to have been no impropriety in the court’s ruling on the presentation by respective counsel of argument at the conclusion of the proceedings on the penalty issue.”

SPENCE, J.

Defendant was found guilty of murder of the first degree and, after proceedings pursuant to section 190.1 of the Penal Code, the jury returned a verdict imposing the death penalty. His motion for a new trial was denied. The appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, §1239, subd. (b).)

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction nor complain of any error during the trial on the issue of his guilt. He confines his objections solely to the subsequent proceedings on the issue of penalty. He contends that the court erred in the penalty hearing in (1) admitting in evidence a conversation defendant had with a deputy sheriff during the progress of the trial on the issue of guilt; and (2) allowing the prosecution to both open and close the arguments to the jury. We have concluded that his contentions are without merit.

It appears that defendant killed Mrs. Martha Gibbs, an 80-year-old woman, about 1 a.m. on June 3,1958. The autopsy revealed that death was caused by some 34 stab wounds of the chest. Defendant was arrested about 1:20 a.m. on June 5, 1958, at which time he volunteered the statement: “I know you want me. I killed her. I was going to turn myself in in the morning. ...” Defendant was immediately taken to the police station, where he made a tape-recorded statement. He said that he had gotten mad at his girl and “took it out” on “Grandma”; and he described the manner of the killing. Defendant was then taken to the deceased’s apartment, where he reenacted the crime. Upon his return to the police station, defendant made and signed another statement substantially the same as the previously tape-recorded one. At the trial on the issue of guilt, defendant neither testified nor presented any evidence on his behalf.

Following the jury’s finding of murder of the first degree, the trial proceeded on the penalty issue. While defendant still did not testify, he presented two witnesses: (1) a court-appointed psychiatrist, who stated that defendant had a “moronic” mental condition, with his mental age fixed at “probably . . . about ten years,” a 6<defective” but not a “diseased mind”; and (2) defendant’s mother, who related briefly defendant’s background — his meager schooling, his “trouble learning,” and the difficulties he encountered by reason of a broken home life following his parents’ separation

[406]

People v. Corwin

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief