Court Opinion

ID: 9794500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:06.031041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:55.441793
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.,* Dissenting.
As I read the record in this ease the evidence relied upon by the majority relative to admissions or confessions of facts by defendant is, in perspective of the entire record, inconsequential. Upon undisputed evidence from independent sources it is difficult to perceive how any verdict other than of guilt could reasonably have been reached by impartial factfinders. Accordingly the error declared by the majority cannot properly support a finding that the verdict which was rendered works a miscarriage of justice against defendant. The judgment should be affirmed.
To present in focus the essential facts the following passages are quoted from the majority opinion:
“The victim was defendant’s son, a child 2% years old. The boy died on November 1, 1962....
“During the several weeks immediately preceding his death, the child suffered approximately 30 injuries or groups of injuries to various parts of his head and body. On the morning of November 2, 1962, a police officer, in response to a radio call, went to defendant’s residence and asked about the child. Defendant identified herself to the officer and directed him to the upstairs bedroom where he found the de*855ceased child lying on a bed. Defendant told the officer that the child had been ill; that she did not think that the illness required a doctor, but that suddenly the previous evening the child had died. Upon the officer’s request for an explanation of the injuries to the child, defendant replied that when the boy had been outside to play, the neighborhood children had inflicted the bruises.”
None of the above related facts can be said to have been procured by improper police conduct. It is undisputed that the deceased child was at all times concerned in the custody of his mother and that medical sendees were available to her without cost. The investigation of the child’s death had not reached an accusatory stage when the officer requested an explanation of the obvious injuries to his body. Furthermore, the following evidence comes from an independent and unimpeached witness (Dr. Kenneth Chapman, M.D., a medical examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office) and unequivocally establishes the cause of the 2%-year-old child’s death, and the callous neglect of his mother preceding his death. Such evidence from Dr. Chapman is ample to show that defendant was at least less than truthful and was conscious of guilt in respect to the death of her child.
Dr. Chapman established his qualifications as a skilled medical expert. He testified that he had performed over 3,000 autopsies and from one performed on defendant’s dead child his findings were: “ [T]he cause of death was a subacute, subdural hematoma, which is a hemorrhage caused by trauma producing blood between the brain and the brain coverings, which produces a pressure on the brain.”
“By “trauma” he meant “An external force, in this case a blow to the head.... [T]he cause of the hemorrhage was a blow to the head. There was also evidence of other traumatic injuries. . . . [The injury was] On the back of the head, there was a bruise of the scalp about 2% by 2% inches in size with hemorrhage into the scalp tissues and accumulation of blood clots in the scalp tissues itself.”
Questions and answers then continue:
“Q. Could you determine from your examination how old this bruise was? A. Only roughly.
1 ‘ Q. What was your determination ? A. It was on the order of one to three weeks.
“Q. Did you examine the entire body of this child? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you find anything else besides this particular bruise on the back of the head?
*856“A. Yes. There were numerous abrasions on the body surface, most of them crusted showing that they were a matter of days, at least, old. There were areas of bruising and there were numerous small sears and some flat sears up to 2 by 2 inches in size.... I made a list of them.. .. On the back of the head, there is a bruise I described, which I measured 2% by 2inches in greatest dimensions. On the surface over this area, there were two abrasions of the skin, one on the right side was 7/16 by % of an inch and one on the left side was the same dimensions.... [T]he back of the head was the location of the bruise (indicating), and on each side of the midline, there was a small abrasion of the skin over the bruised area (indicating). On the left parietal scalp directly above the ear, that would be this portion of the scalp (indicating), there was an abrasion 2 inches by % of an inch in greatest dimensions, which showed crusting of the surface and the left parietal occipital region, which is the left side of the head (indicating). Further toward the back, there was an area of swelling of the scalp with an abrasion overlying a % by 3/16 of an inch in size. On the right parietal scalp directly above the ear, which would be in this location (indicating), on the right parietal scalp, there was an area of abrasion 7/16 by 5/16 of an inch in size. There were additional smaller crusted abrasions on the forehead and the right cheek.
‘1 There was a swelling of the left upper eyelid which did not show any discoloration. There was no evidence of injury to the eyeballs.
“There were numerous small sears on the scalp and the face, the largest was 1% by % of an inch in size located in the midline of the posterior parietal region—rather, it was left of the midline approximately in this location (indicating).
“There were crusted abrasions on the pinna of both ears. There was a % inch crusted abrasion on the under surface of the chin. The under surface of the jaw and both sides of the neck ih front and on the sides showed many areas of ecchymotic discoloration, which is to say discoloration resembling that of a bruise, having a mottled distribution. Similar areas of the mottled bruising were found on the front of the chest and the back of the chest, the abdomen and the right and left lateral aspects of the chest and the right and left flanks. A similar area of mottled bruising was found on the abdomen just above the pubic region and also on both thighs in front and near the genital region.
“There were scattered small sears a quarter to half inch *857in size over the front and left side of the chest. There was a flat sear 1% by % of an inch in size on the right lower chest in the back.
“The posterior sacro-iliac region, which is the back of the trunk region, showed multiple scars ranging from a quarter to an inch in greatest dimensions. The left arm between the elbow and the shoulder in front and on the side showed scars which measured 1%, 1% and 1 inch in greatest dimensions. There were smaller sears on the back of the right forearm. On the left arm anteriorly just above the elbow, there was an area of avulsion of the skin, which means loss of skin surface, which was % by 5/16 of an inch in size. This appeared somewhat old, having the appearance of an abrasion from which the scab had been torn off.
“On the back of the left forearm, there was a crusted abrasion an inch and a quarter by an inch and—excuse me— an inch and a quarter by an eighth of an inch in size. There were additional smaller areas of scarring and crusted abrasions.
“On the left buttocks, there was a dark gray brown area of bruising an inch and a quarter by % of an inch in size. On the right ankle anteriorly, there was a scar which was an inch and three quarters by % of an inch in size. The left ankle and the foot showed swelling with discoloration by bruising. Both feet were somewhat swollen and the upper and lower lips were moderately swollen and the lower lips showed an increase of firmness, which would indicate some scarring of the tissues underneath the skin.... The left and ninth rib (indicating) toward the back showed a healed fractured callus. A fluoroscopic examination of the entire body was done and there was no other evidence of bone injury.
“Q. When you say callus, what does that mean? A. That is the bone formation that occurs at the site of a healed fracture.
‘1 There was a bruise of the bladder in front and there was a bruising of the left psoas muscle, which is a muscle in the trunk region that is attached to the pelvis and the thigh. It is located toward the back of the body.
“Q. Now these are internal bruises? A. Yes.
“Q. Inside of the body? A. Yes.
“There was evidence that some blood had been aspirated into the lungs, and microscopic examination confirmed that and showed that there was a pneumonia developing at the location of the aspirated blood.
*858“On reflecting the scalp, the bruise at the back of the head, which I previously mentioned, was noted. The scalp was thickened and there was a collection of blood within the scalp a quarter of an inch in thickness. This bruising extended onto the right side, posterior, to the ear. There was additional bruising on the under surface of the scalp on the left side in the frontal partietal [sic] region, which would be about here (indicating). There was no skull fracture.
“Opening the brain cavity, we found a hemorrhage which was subdural, which means located between the surface of the brain and the dura, which is a membrane that is attached to the skull. This was located on both sides of the brain and on the sides and underneath the brain. This hemorrhage was estimated at 100 cc’s, which would be about 3 to 3% fluid ounces. It showed a neomembrane, which would indicate passing of time, the result of an early attempt at healing of the injury.
“Q. You mean when you say healing, do you mean by medical treatment of the body or by the body? A. No, I mean the body reaction to the presence of the blood clot.
‘ ‘ On microscopic examination, my estimate of the age would be two to three weeks.
‘ ‘ Q. Referring to the injury to the head ? A. Of this blood clot.
“Q. Now did you find any evidence of any medical treatment ? A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. Now this particular injury to the head which caused death, was it of such a nature that it could have responded to medical treatment? Do you have an opinion concerning this? A. Yes.
“Q. What is that opinion? A. A blood clot, a subdural blood clot can be removed surgically.”
It may also be mentioned that the witness Fannie Sullivan, who sometimes visited and sometimes did babysitting for defendant, testified that on November 1, 1962, the day of the child Bubba’s death, she was at the defendant’s home; that she arrived “About 12:00 o’clock” and “stayed there until ... about 4:00 o ’clock... in the afternoon; ’ ’ that she did not see Bubba that day. The witness, under questioning continued :
“Q. On November 1st, did Joyce [defendant] tell you anything about Bubba? A. She told me that she didn’t like the baby on account of his dad.... And then she told me *859she had him tied in the hed and she said she was tying him to keep him from pulling her food out of the refrigerator box.
‘ ‘ Q. Did she say that on November 1st ? A. November the 1st.
“Q. Now when you say tied, you mean tied with a string or rope? A Yes, with a string.
“Q. Did she say where he was tied, where in what room? A. He was in the room, the second room.
“Q. Now what kind of a place is that that Joyce lives in, is it one-story or two-stories? A. Two-stories.
“Q. You were staying at her home on the first story, is that it, you were on the ground floor? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you go upstairs that day? A. No, I didn’t. She told me to stay downstairs and keep the children from going up there, that Buhba was up there asleep and to keep the children from going up there and waking him up.
“Q. Did she tell you anything else? A. No.

( C

“Q. Now you saw Bubba on October 1st? A. October 1st.
“Q. Did you see the defendant, Joyce Porhs, do anything to Bubha on that day? A. No, not on that day.
‘ ‘ One day I was up there, she hit him with the broom, that is all I seed her do to him.

C (

“Q. When was it that you saw her hit Bubba with the broom? A. That was the same day I babysat for her but she didn’t hit him very hard with the broom.
“Q. Was it the first time you babysat or the second time? A. That was the first time.
“Q. That would be October 1st then? A. Yes.
“Q. Did she hit him one time or more than one time? A. Just one time.
“Q. What portion of his body did she hit with the broom? A. On the head.
“Q. Did you say anything to her or did she say anything to you? A. Yes, I told her—I told her, ‘Joyce, I wouldn’t do that.’ She said, ‘I don’t like the baby because I don’t like his dad. ’
“Q. That was after she had hit him on the head? A. Yes.”
In my view the evidence above set forth fully supports a finding that defendant was guilty of murder in the second degree. There would have been no reasonable basis for holding that a verdict of second degree murder could constitute a miscarriage of justice. That the jury wished to be lenient *860and ameliorate the penalty to that for voluntary manslaughter should not be made the basis for a reversal of the conviction.
In view of the overwhelming independent evidence of defendant’s guilt, the fact that it was also cumulatively shown that she made some admissions or confessions of facts should not be magnified out of reasonable proportion to any logical effect upon the verdict. In this connection it is to be noted that the defendant requested and the court gave the following instruction:
“A confession is involuntary when it is obtained by any sort of violence or threats, or by any direct or implied promises of immunity or benefit, or by any improper influence which might induce in the mind of the defendant the belief or hope that he would gain or benefit or be better off by making a statement, and when the defendant makes such confession as the result of any such inducement originating with a law enforcement officer. But, even though a confession is made under a hope or belief of benefit, it will not be involuntary if such hope or benefit originated in the mind of the defendant solely, or was induced solely by the advice or counsel of a relative, attorney, or other person not connected with law enforcement.
“The fact that a defendant was under arrest at the time he made a confession or that he was not at the time represented by counsel or that he was not told that any statement he might make could or would be used against him or that he was told that others had made statements implicating him in the crime, will not render such confession involuntary.
“Where there is a conflict in the evidence, it is for the jury to decide whether the confession was made voluntarily or involuntarily, and in making this determination the jury should govern its action by the same rules as to weighing the evidence and credibility of witnesses as apply to the determination of any of the issues in the ease.”
If it was error to give the quoted instruction it was error invited by defendant and, in any event, because of the independent overwhelming evidence of her guilt, does not establish a basis for reversing the judgment.
In the circumstances no miscarriage of justice adverse to defendant appears. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4%; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 834-838 [299 P.2d 243].)
I would affirm the judgment.
McComb, J., concurred.