People v. Gills

PIERCE, P. J. This appeal has been before ns before. (People v. Gills (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 711 [50 Cal.Rptr. 872].) A hearing by the Supreme Court was denied. Certiorari was granted defendant by the United States Supreme Court vacating the judgment and remanding the case to this court “for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824].” (Gills v. California, 387 U.S. 574 [18 L.Ed.2d 966, 87 S.Ct. 2069].) Pursuant to that direction we recalled the remittitur, counsel was reappointed, the appeal was rebriefed and reargued.

After the reconsideration directed by the United States Supreme Court, we have reached the conclusion, for reasons discussed below, that Griffin-type1 error tested by the stricter requirements of Chapman, supra, commands reversal.

The facts are fully set forth in our earlier opinion. Only summarization sufficient to give the discussion to follow understandability is required.

Defendant appealed from a judgment following conviction of grand theft of saddles from a Colusa County farm where he had previously been employed on a season-to-season basis. He admitted three prior felony convictions. His employment had been terminated on October 29, 1964.2 The theft of the saddles and other tack was on October 31, 1964. Two of the saddles were recovered in the motel room of one Dick Lockett at Gayway, Idaho, a suburb of, and across the border from, Ontario, Oregon, on November 18th. Lockett offered the saddles for sale to a saddle dealer, Swisher. A sale was effected. Defendant was present during the negotiations. Swisher eounteroffered to buy one of the saddles (worth about $180) for $50. Swisher, a prosecution witness, testified that Lockett asked defendant if they should sell, and defendant replied, “Well, we are losing money on it. ’ ’ Other prosecution evidence included the fact that Lockett and defendant had been observed talking together at the farm during the period of defendant’s employment.

Defendant was suspected of having stolen the saddles. He was apprehended in Davis in December. He was interrogated in the Davis city jail after a warning adequate to meet the Escobedo-Dorado requirements. (Escobedo v. [810]Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758]; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361].) He denied theft of the saddles or any knowledge of the fact of the theft. Defendant was driven to Colusa. During the ride he reiterated his denials. After having been told by the arresting officer that the latter knew he and Lockett had sold one of the saddles, defendant, while repeating his denial of commission of the theft, first stated: ‘ ‘ There are no more saddles from north of Vale.” (Vale is a village in Oregon a mile or two from Ontario.) Later, upon ascertaining that Lockett was also a suspect, he said he did not want to get Lockett involved and acknowledged that he knew he was going back to the ‘ ‘ joint. ’ ’