Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/233/702.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:48:24+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOE L. BEVERLY, Defendant and Appellant.
Joe L. Beverly, in pro. per., and John Alden Doty, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., and Edward P. O'Brien, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The evidence supportive of the jury's verdict is as follows: On the evening of November 15, 1962, defendant, upon returning [233 Cal. App. 2d 707] to his apartment, found his wife, Anne, her girl friend, Betty Green, and a neighbor, Gordon Tolliver, in the living room. Shortly thereafter they were joined by Gene Knox, James Wilson and Kenneth Boyd. Anne had brought these guests together for a card game. Defendant requested several times that Anne come into the bedroom. Upon her refusal an argument ensued between Anne and defendant, whereupon the latter picked up a coke bottle and slammed it against her face. Boyd remonstrated that defendant should not hit his wife Defendant replied that Anne was his wife and that he could do anything he wanted to. Defendant left the apartment but returned several minutes later. He then slipped off his jacket, produced a knife and moved towards his wife who darted behind Boyd. Angry words were exchanged. Anne refused to move from behind Boyd until defendant ceased threatening her with the knife. Defendant then folded the knife and placed it in a pocket of his trousers. While this altercation was in progress Wilson had gravitated toward the outside door and was urging Boyd to leave and not to become involved in a family quarrel. As Boyd turned around to walk out the door, defendant opened the knife, ran behind Boyd and twice rammed the knife in his back. Boyd subsequently died at a hospital from an internal hemorrhage due to the infliction of the two stab wounds in his back. After the stabbing defendant reappeared in the apartment clutching the knife. Only Anne and her girl friend were then present. Defendant told them he had stabbed Boyd because he did not appreciate Boyd's telling him what to do. Several hours later defendant notified the police that he had stabbed a man earlier that evening, and he was thereupon placed under arrest. A police officer searched defendant's jacket and discovered a knife in the lining. Defendant admitted that it was the knife used in the stabbing. He again admitted stabbing Boyd at the police station and when he was subsequently interrogated by Police Inspector Asdrubale.
Defendant took the stand in his own defense and testified substantially as follows: On the night in question he had asked Boyd, Knox and Wilson to leave the apartment; an argument ensued with his wife and he slapped her; Boyd jumped up from the couch, brandished a knife, moved toward defendant, and invited him outside to fight; defendant then called the police; he next went into the kitchen, grabbed a knife and returned to the living room; a 10-minute argument ensued, after which defendant and Boyd started to leave; [233 Cal. App. 2d 708] defendant, however, changed his mind and refused to fight, but as he turned from the doorway, he thought Boyd was preparing to stab him so he plunged his knife into Boyd's back; he then ran out the door and continued to struggle with Knox and Wilson; however, when he observed a gun he hurried back into the apartment; he subsequently left the premises and was later arrested. Defendant also testified relative to an incident which occurred at the house of Betty Green two weeks before the subject altercation as follows: That he went to the Green residence to visit his wife and children; that his wife and Boyd were there playing cards together; that he upbraided his wife for playing cards in the children's presence and invited her downstairs to talk; that Boyd told Anne that she could refuse to go with defendant; that as defendant made reply to Boyd's remark the latter produced a knife and challenged him to a fight; and that he refused to fight Boyd.
Adverting to the instant case, we first set forth the facts pertinent to defendant's claim. Several hours after the knifing of Boyd defendant telephoned the police and spoke to Officer Driscoll. Defendant identified himself as Joe Beverly and stated, as testified by Driscoll, that "he believed that he was wanted by the Police." Driscoll, who was attached to Headquarters Communications, testified that at the time he received this call he "knew of the case" and knew that the police were looking for a Joe Beverly, as he had received a teletype concerning such a person which he was about to read over the radio. fn. 1 Driscoll testified that he therefore recognized the name of Joe Beverly and asked the telephone caller "why he believed he was wanted by the Police Department"; that the caller responded he had stabbed a man earlier in the evening, and when asked by Driscoll why he had stabbed this man replied as follows: That he and his wife were separated; that he went to his wife's home to deliver checks for child support payments; that he found a man in his house whom he had found there on a previous occasion and who, on that occasion, had pulled a knife on him; that consequently when he found this man in his home once again, he went directly into the kitchen, armed himself with a knife, and then ordered the man to leave; and that when the man didn't leave he stabbed him. Driscoll then asked the caller where he was, [233 Cal. App. 2d 710] and upon being told, wrote it on a note and gave it to another officer who relayed the information over the radio to a police unit in the area. Driscoll then engaged defendant in a general conversation about his children until the telephone conversation was interrupted by a police officer who stated he had defendant in custody.
Defendant was taken in custody in the business office of a gas station by Officer Roberts. As Roberts entered the office defendant stated to him, " 'I'll be with you in a minute. I'm talking to the police.' " He continued talking and then handed Roberts the receiver, stating " 'Here, the policeman wants to talk to you.' " Roberts testified that he spoke to Driscoll and that when he hung up the telephone he "asked the defendant Beverly if he had been involved in an altercation that evening, where he had cut a man with a knife," and that defendant replied that "he had been involved in an altercation." When queried by Roberts as to what he had done with the knife, defendant pointed to a tool box in the office. In the tool box Roberts found a knife in a leather case and, in addition, an empty leather case. Roberts asked defendant where the knife belonging to the empty case was, defendant responding that he didn't know. Roberts noted a jacket lying on a chair and inquired of defendant if it was his. Defendant replied that it was, whereupon Roberts searched the jacket and found a knife identical to that in the tool case. Roberts then asked defendant "if this was the knife that he had used to cut the party with on that evening" to which defendant replied that it was.
Defendant was then removed from the gas station to the district police station where another conversation took place between Roberts and defendant in the presence of Officer Gray. With respect to this conversation Roberts testified that he "asked the defendant what the circumstances were involving his becoming involved in the cutting where he had stabbed a man with a knife"; that defendant stated that while he was visiting his wife, "four guys" tried to gain admission into the house; that one of them named Boyd asked him to step out; that he went back into the kitchen and secured the knife which Roberts had retrieved from his coat; and that as he was going out of the door Boyd pushed him and he at this time "hit him [Boyd] with the knife. ..." Defendant was thereafter turned over to the custody of Inspector Asdrubale.
The tape recording consisted of questions by Asdrubale and answers by defendant. In response to Asdrubale's questioning defendant stated that he had visited his estranged wife's residence; that several persons were present including Boyd; that he and his wife had an argument whereupon he struck her in the face with a bottle; that Boyd then came at him with a knife, stating that defendant should fight him rather than his wife; that defendant then went into the kitchen and obtained a knife; fn. 3 that he put the knife in his pocket and went back into the living room; that Boyd used vile language and again invited him to fight; that Boyd didn't know he had a knife; that he asked Boyd to leave; that he removed the knife from his pocket and opened it, at which time his wife ran behind Boyd for protection; that Boyd then put his knife away; that defendant then closed his knife; that he then telephoned the police and asked Boyd and three of his companions to leave; that Boyd invited him outside to fight; that he was behind Boyd as the latter was going outside the door with a knife in his hand; that as Boyd was going out of the door defendant "stabbed him in the back" twice; that he stabbed him because he was angry and because he believed that Boyd and his companions would "do me in" when he got outside; [233 Cal. App. 2d 712] that Boyd and the other men ran out; that when defendant got outside one of the other men stated he was going to shoot him; that he believed that the man had a gun; that one of the men threw "something" at him; that he chased the men and they ran away; that he then went back into the house but left because his wife asked him to go and also because his wife told him the police were coming; that he walked around the general area; that someone fired a shot at him; that he returned to the house to get some keys; that no one was there; that he then caught a bus and went to the home of Stephanie Ann Hughes; that her sister opened the door and he stated to her "I killed a guy awhile ago"; that he then told Stephanie that he had "killed a guy ... knifed him"; that he also told her he had shot a man, but was only "playing around" when he made this statement; that he showed her the knife; that when she stated she didn't believe him because there was no blood on the knife, he stated "I did stab a guy" and "I have a good feelin' I'm goin' to jail"; that he went to the gas station where he was employed and called the police, telling them that "I cut a guy; the guy was going to jump on me, so I stabbed him."
In Dorado, it was held that the improper introduction into evidence of a confession which has been obtained in violation of the constitutional right to counsel results in a denial of due process and that accordingly the error is necessarily prejudicial so as to preclude the application of the harmless error rule.  Dorado does, however, contain the following statement: "Although under some circumstances the introduction into evidence of statements obtained from a defendant during police interrogation in violation of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent may constitute harmless [233 Cal. App. 2d 714] error, we are convinced that the error is necessarily prejudicial when the statements are confessions." (P. 356; emphasis added.) We interpret this statement to mean that in the case of admissions the harmless error rule announced in People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 835-838 [299 P.2d 243], and applied with due regard to the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2, of the California Constitution, is applicable.
Turning to the facts of the present case once again, we find that defendant made four separate statements to the police: One to Officer Driscoll, two to Officer Roberts, and one to Inspector Asdrubale. fn. 4 Defendant was not informed by the police of his right to counsel or of his right to remain silent prior to the making of these statements. Accordingly, we must now analyze each of these statements in the light of the Dorado rule, and, where pertinent, with regard to the foregoing principles applicable to confessions and admissions.
 With respect to the incriminatory statements made to Driscoll, regardless of whether they amounted to a confession or were, instead, admissions of material facts, we are convinced that they were not obtained in violation of the Dorado rule. Although it may be inferred that at the time defendant made these statements the investigation had begun to focus on him--since Driscoll knew that the police were looking for a person named Joe Beverly--he was neither under arrest nor in custody at this time. Nor can it be said that Driscoll was carrying out "a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements."  As stated in Stewart, in deciding whether such an interrogation has taken place the determination must be made upon the objective evidence and upon an analysis of "the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." (P. 579.) In the present case there is nothing in the record to show that Driscoll knew any of the circumstances of the crime charged except that a Joe Beverly was wanted by the police. That Driscoll was not carrying out the "process of interrogations" delineated in Dorado and Stewart is apparent from the nature of his questions and particularly from his inquiry of defendant as to [233 Cal. App. 2d 715] why he believed he was wanted by the police.  It is plain, moreover, that an interrogation over the telephone in connection with a call initiated by defendant himself is not the "process of interrogations" delineated and defined in Dorado and Stewart. Accordingly, we have an absence of the two conditions prescribed by Stewart which give rise to the accusatory or critical stage entitling the suspect to counsel, that is, an arrest and the " 'process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements.' " (P. 577.) The subject statements fall, in our opinion, into the category of unsolicited statements obtained without coercion. Such statements were held in Dorado to be admissible and not proscribed by the rule announced therein.
The statements made later by defendant to Roberts at the district station were made under circumstances similar to those described in Konigsberg. At this time Roberts asked defendant "what the circumstances were involving his becoming involved in the cutting where he had stabbed a man with a knife." This interrogation was not per se indicative of a purpose to elicit a confession. Its tenor was equally consistent with the purpose of obtaining defendant's side of the story, which explanation defendant proceeded to give. Under the circumstances and in the light of the test described by Stewart the subject interrogation did not amount to "a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements." Assuming arguendo, that the accusatory or critical stage had been reached when Roberts asked this question, the statements made by defendant did not amount to a confession so as to make the error prejudicial per se. The statements did not constitute an admission of guilt but were statements of [233 Cal. App. 2d 717] justification and excuse, which, if true, might support the plea of self-defense. Thus, the incriminating statements were, at worst, an admission of material facts. Whether the error in admitting them was prejudicial depends upon our analysis of the entire case under the rule announced in Dorado, an analysis we shall hereinafter make.
When the tape recording of defendant's statements to Asdrubale was played before the jury, the jurors were each handed a transcript of the recording to assist them in following it. The tape recording was admitted in evidence but the transcripts were only marked for identification. After the jurors had retired to the jury room to deliberate they requested several exhibits, including the tape recording and the transcripts. Counsel for defendant stated to the court that he preferred to have the transcripts of the tape recording go into the jury room rather than the tape recording itself, because it would consume much time to listen to the entire tape. Defense counsel then stipulated that the transcripts which had been previously marked for identification only could be admitted into evidence subject to the same objections he had made during the trial to the tape recording. fn. 7 It was also stipulated [233 Cal. App. 2d 718] by defendant's counsel that the transcripts could be taken into the jury room.
[15b] In the case at bench, the evidence relative to defendant's bigamous relationship does not come within any of the excepted categories of the general rule. Therefore, it was error to admit this evidence. The People argue that the challenged evidence was admitted to show defendant's intent, that is, that he acted with malice aforethought. This argument is without merit because there was no connection between the bigamy and the alleged murder which would make the evidence relevant to show intent.  In addition, in order to draw the inference that a defendant had the requisite intent to commit the charged crime from the fact that he committed a collateral uncharged offense at another time, there must be a showing of similarity of circumstances between the two crimes. Otherwise, proof of the collateral offense serves no purpose other than to show the disposition of the defendant to commit crimes. (People v. Burns, 109 Cal. App. 2d 524, 536-537 [241 P.2d 308, 242 P.2d 9]; People v. Nazzaro, 223 Cal. App. 2d 375, 379 [35 Cal. Rptr. 879]; People v. MacEwing, 216 Cal. App. 2d 33, 48-49 [30 Cal. Rptr. 476].) [15c] In this case the prosecution made no attempt to show similarity of circumstances between the crimes, and the statement in the People's brief that such evidence was admissible to show [233 Cal. App. 2d 721] intent, unsupported by authority or logic, cannot be sustained.
 It is the constitutional obligation of an appellate court to declare a miscarriage of justice "only when the court, 'after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,' is of the 'opinion' that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 836; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4 1/2.) Upon an examination of the record in this case we conclude that it cannot be said that there was a miscarriage of justice, since it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. The record points emphatically to defendant's guilt. His version of the occurrence is opposed by the abundant testimony of four eyewitnesses. In addition, the record properly contains the admissions which defendant made in his statement over the telephone to Driscoll to the effect that defendant stabbed Boyd, as well as his statements to Roberts at the gas station.
[10b, 11b] Although we are of the opinion that defendant's statements to Roberts at the district station that he stabbed Boyd were properly admitted in evidence, assuming arguendo, that it was error to admit them, such error was harmless. These statements, as well as the erroneously admitted statements made to Asdrubale, are exculpatory in nature. These statements may be regarded as a justification or excuse for the stabbing since they expressly negatived that defendant's conduct was accompanied by criminal intent. They amount to an acknowledgment of the stabbing accompanied by a claim that the homicide was committed in self- defense. This is the exact theory upon which defendant based his defense at the trial and upon which he sought to justify the killing when he became a witness in his own behalf. The statements made to Roberts and Asdrubale were reiterative of the claim which defendant persisted in from the time he telephoned to [233 Cal. App. 2d 723] the police, and throughout the trial--a claim voluntarily and spontaneously injected into the case by defendant himself.
These statements, moreover, would tend to overcome any implication that defendant's statements to Driscoll and those made to Roberts at the gas station, which we have held were properly admitted, were confessions. Under the circumstances, therefore, we fail to see that defendant was prejudiced by the admission in evidence of the admissions obtained in violation of the Dorado rule.
Sullivan, P. J., and Bray, J., fn. * concurred.
FN 1. The record does not indicate the contents of the teletype message.
FN 2. Motions to suppress the tape recording and to strike its contents on the respective ground of deprivation of due process and that the "confession" was "illegally obtained," were denied by the trial court after a voir dire relative to the circumstances under which the interrogation was conducted and the statement obtained. The voir dire disclosed that defendant was interrogated after a sleepless night, was given no food, and was not told that the interrogation was being taped. Excepting for the due process implications of the Dorado rule, no issue is raised on this appeal, nor is any claim of error made, as to the manner and method in which the interrogation was conducted.
FN 3. Defendant was shown a knife by Asdrubale which defendant identified as the knife he had obtained in the kitchen.
FN 4. The record discloses that defendant also made a statement to Asdrubale while en route to the Hall of Justice. Asdrubale did not testify as to the nature of the statements, but merely referred to it as a "cursory interrogation" stating "he went through the thing. ... He jumped all over the place. ..."
FN 6. Many of Asdrubale's questions were made in an accusatory manner and on occasion he stated to defendant that he did not believe defendant was telling the truth.
FN 7. It follows from our earlier discussion that since these transcripts were made from a tape recording which was erroneously admitted into evidence under Dorado, they too were improperly put before the jury on this basis. This error, however, is subject to the same prejudicial error rule as is applicable to the admission into evidence of the tape recording itself. Accordingly, the propriety of the use by the jury of the transcripts hinges on our determination of whether under the Watson rule the admission of defendant's statements to Asdrubale constituted harmless or prejudicial error.
FN 8. "Mr. Maurer: [The Prosecutor] Didn't you marry her? The Witness: I think this should be objected to. I am not in on this case. That shouldn't be in here at this time. Mr. Davis: [Counsel for defendant] I object as incompetent and irrelevant at this time. The Court: Objection overruled. Answer the question. The Witness: No, not exactly. ... Q. Didn't you marry her in January of last year? A. Marry her? Q. Yes, sir. A. Not legally; any time you stay with anybody in the State of California more than six months it's married, you know, but it's not legally married. Q. Well, you have children by her? A. Yes, I do. Mr. Davis: I am going to object to this entire line of questioning on the grounds it's beyond the scope of direct examination. The Court: The objection is overruled. I think it has been explored. Mr. Davis: Further on the grounds it's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The Court: Objection is overruled. I think it's been explored sufficiently, Mr. Maurer. Mr. Maurer: All right, Your Honor."
FN 9. In its argument to the jury the prosecution stated: "Now, Mr. Davis, at numerous times in his argument to you kept referring to his home as his castle, that the witnesses who were there, the male witnesses who were there, were trespassers, that he was defending his home. What home? What castle? Mr. Beverly apparently has two castles. Which one was he defending? Was he there where he had no right to be? All of the witnesses testified, when he makes the complaint to his wife, 'Well, you don't live here; you have no right to complain.' Isn't that what the testimony was? He is married to Ann Beverly. He has children by her. He is married to Stephanie Beverly, he has children by her. She lives at 1181 Pierce. She tells Inspector Asdrubale she lives at 2404 Bush, around the corner. He has got three castles."
FN 10. The prosecutor also made reference to the fact that defendant was not supporting his children. Over objection he was permitted to indulge in the following cross-examination: "Q. You are supporting these children that you speak about, Mr. Beverly? A. Yes, I am. Q. They are on Welfare, aren't they? ... The Witness: I did give her the money and she doesn't report it. That's her fault."
FN 11. It should be here pointed out that this error is predicated on the ground of irrelevancy. Although the bigamy evidence was part of a statement which was made under the circumstances proscribed by Dorado, the admission of such evidence was not violative of the Dorado rule because it was not a confession of a crime with which defendant was charged in the instant case, nor an admission of a material fact or facts tending toward proof of the guilt of such crime; rather it was a confession or admission of another offense.
FN 12. Defense counsel asked for a recess in order that he might read the transcript of the tape recording to determine if there were "any conclusions or statements that I feel are objectionable. ..."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4