Court Opinion

ID: 9727337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:31:18.434018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:36.392107
License: Public Domain

HANSON, J.
I dissent.
This case emanates from the brutal and senseless slaying of one Grace Capistrano shortly before midnight in the vicinity of a community hospital as she, wearing a white nurse’s uniform, sat behind the steering wheel of her car, windows up, doors locked and motor running. She was shot in the back through the car window. The bullet lodged in her heart. She was pronounced dead at the scene of the crime.
The defendant, a minor, charged with the crime and represented by a deputy public defender, was tried by a juvenile court judge. As a result of an intensive investigation by the police, their attention was directed toward the defendant as possibly being involved in the killing. The police interviewed the defendant which resulted in a confession (more properly, an admission) which was tape recorded. The tape recording was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel on the ground that it was involuntary. The defendant did not testify in his own defense. At the conclusion of the trial the defendant was found guilty of murder as an aider and abettor, adjudged a ward of the court and committed to the California Youth Authority.
On appeal, defendant contends that his confession (admission) was improperly admitted into evidence because it was involuntarily made *205under pressure from impermissible police tactics and that the evidence is insufficient without his confession (admission) to support his conviction of the murder.
While it is the duty of a reviewing court, as noted in the majority opinion, to make an independent examination of the record for uncontradicted facts showing involuntariness, “[a] well settled principle of appellate review dictates that all intendments be indulged to support the trial court findings and that the reviewing court consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. (People v. Sweeney (1960) 55 Cal.2d 27, 33 [9 Cal.Rptr. 793, 357 P.2d 1049].)” (People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542, 547 [111 Cal.Rptr. 183, 516 P.2d 887].)
The quotations from the transcription of the tape recording set forth in the majority opinion are extracted from a transcript consisting of 51 pages of 26 lines each. The trial judge listened to the entire tape in context, considered the arguments of counsel and found as a “matter of law” it was voluntary and therefore admissible and passed on its credibility and reliability as “the trier of fact” on the guilt or innocence issue. The trial judge in response to defense counsel’s objection to the introduction of the tape, indicated he was of the opinion that, in context, the interviewing officers promised nothing; their comments were by way of explanation and extolled the virtue of telling the truth. The trial judge also said: “This is the kind of thing we run into in juvenile court constantly wherein the Courts turn around and say ‘You didn’t tell the kid enough. You didn’t warn him; you know that he could go up as an adult. You didn’t warn him that he could do so much time in the Youth Authority. You didn’t lay the law out to him.’ In essence, they did it in a more positive manner. I think what they did was they told him everything that was open and what could happen to him; and kicked in there that it may not be that harsh ‘ifyou tell us the truth.’ ”
A confession is voluntary when it is the product of a rational intellect and a free will. (Blackburn v. Alabama (1960) 361 U.S. 199, 208 [4 L.Ed.2d 242, 249, 80 S.Ct. 274].) The officers at the outset warned defendant of his rights in clear and explicit language in all respects in accord with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974], and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758].1 There was no *206“rubber'hose,” wrack or screw employed resulting in physical intimidation during the interview. I cannot say, in light of my review of the entire transcript of the tape in context, the whole record on appeal and all of the circumstances, that the trial court erred in admitting the confession into evidence or that the “rational intellect” and “free will” of the defendant was overborne by the interrogation technique of the officers.
*207I am of the opinion that the defendant was fairly tried and justly convicted.2
I would affirm the judgment.3

“Suspect of D.R. No. 73-3654.
"Roger. This is Detective Varey. Inglewood Police Department: Detective Long. Inglewood Police Department. What we are going to do now is advise you of your rights. *206going to read you your rights, and after each right. I would like you to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ you do understand it or you do not understand it. OK?
“A Yeah.
“Q Number 1. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?
“A Yup.
“Q Yes?
“A You [jzc].
“Q Number 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand that?
“A Yeah.
“Q Number 3. You have a right to talk to the lawyer before we talk to you and have him present while we talk to you. Do you understand that?
“A Yup.
“Q Number 4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning free of charge. Do you understand that?
“A You [ízc],
“Q Do you understand each of the rights explained to you?
“A Yup.
“Q Do you want to talk about this case or not?
“A Yeah. I don’t even know what I’m arrested for.
“Q We’ll tell you. Do you want a lawyer or not?
“A . Naw.
“Q Do you?
“A Huh.
“Q OK. That means no?
“A Uhhuh.
“Q Now, can you say yes or no?
“A No.
“Q Thank you. Move a little closer. OK, Roger, you have been arrested for suspicion of homicide.
“A That’s murder, huh."

The defendant related to the officers during the interview in question that he did not fire the fatal shot but went with two other juveniles to the vicinity of the hospital where the victim was killed: that he knew there was a gun in the trunk of their car: that at the scene he heard one of the others, whom he identified, say: “Come on. man. let's get her": that the same person then said, “open the door" and thereafter shot twice through the window of the car: that the juvenile who fired the fatal shot gave the gun to the defendant to get rid of and he (the defendant) gave it to his “stepfather" and a ballistics expert testified that one of the two bullets fired could have been fired from the gun produced by the defendant.
Thus this defendant’s intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this murder, including the location of the murder, the description of the victim and car, the two shots fired through the window, and his instructions to police as to the whereabouts of the weapon, all clothe his statement with a badge of reliability. Although the defendant denied firing the fatal shot and tried to exonerate himself, the evidence, direct and indirect, amply supports the lower court's finding of his guilt as an aider and abettor of a heinous murder.

The U.S. News & World Report issue of November 24. 1975, based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s official Uniform Crime Reports for 1974 (published Nov. 17). states that serious crime rose by a record 17.6 percent in the United States last year. The official increase was the biggest one-year jump since the FBI began keeping records in 1930. The total of serious crimes reported in 1974 was 10.192.020—up 1.525.800 from 1973. Crimes of violence went up 47 percent between 1969 and 1974: there were 14.680 murders in 1969 and 20.600 murders in 1974—up 40 percent. The crime is the heaviest in the western states and specially in metropolitan areas. Crime is climbing again this year—up 13 percent in the first half of 1975. Youths under 18 accounted for 27 percent of all 1974 arrests.