People v. Martinez

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 1965 No. Crim. 9871Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the admission of a signed statement obtained from the defendant during custodial interrogation without constitutional warnings constituted reversible error because it was reasonably probable that the defendant would have achieved a more favorable result without it.

Issues

Whether the defendant's statements in the patrol car were obtained in violation of the Dorado rule.
Whether the defendant's signed statement at the police station was obtained in violation of the Dorado rule.
Whether the erroneous admission of the signed statement resulted in a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude it is reasonably probable a more favorable result to the defendant would have been reached had the signed statement given to the police not been admitted in evidence.”

FLEMING, J.

Defendant was charged with murder, and in a nonjury trial convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The sole issue before us arises out of the admission in evidence of defendant’s statements given to the police without constitutional warning.

(People

Dorado,

62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361].)

About 4 p.m. on the day of the killing, William Tabor saw the deceased, age 40, seated in a chair in the defendant’s room. Defendant, age 79, was sitting on the bed about 3 feet from deceased. Defendant and deceased were arguing and cursing, and defendant was waving a knife. Deceased “was just daring him, and all of that. That has been going on for years. ’ ’ Deceased and defendant lived in the same apartment house and had known one another well for several years. Tabor left the scene and returned later when he heard a racket. On entering the room he saw blood on the floor, and the deceased on top of defendant on the bed. “They were wrestling at the time, and I could see [the deceased] getting white and he couldn’t do much. . . . One hand was holding [defendant’s] arm with the knife and the other one had hold of the other hand. He [deceased] wasn’t very hard to pull loose.” After pulling the deceased off the defendant, Tabor called an ambulance and the police.

[253]

About 5 p.m. the police arrived and arrested the defendant. Officer Sparkenbach testified the defendant made the following oral statements in the patrol car on the way to the police station: “He stated that he and the victim had been drinking . . . and . . . got in an argument and the victim wanted some money for some more wine . . . plus the victim was sitting in the favorite chair ... as the argument got heated, the victim stated he could overcome the . . . defendant. The defendant said that he was a Marine and no one could overcome him. And he picked up this knife, put it in his hand . . . He said that he had stabbed the victim with this knife and that he hoped that he died, went to hell. And he made the statement over and over that he was a Marine, no one was going to overcome him.”

About 6 p.m. at the police station defendant signed a statement which had been written and prepared by the police. The statement included the following: “For some time now Leon [deceased] has been trying to pick a fight with me because he thought he could take me for my money. But tonight I showed him, when he tried to overpower me, he grabbed my arm and twisted it behind me and I told him to turn me loose when he didn’t I took care of him. I grabbed my knife off the table and hit in four or five in the stomach until Lloyd [Tabor] stopped me. I was so crazy mad I wouldn’t have stopped till I killed him ... As far as I know he didn’t have a knife or anything like that in his hands. He is only forty years old and I’m 79, that’s why I used the knife. ’ ’

People v. Martinez

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief