Court Opinion

ID: 9625877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:53:38.806492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:16.295819
License: Public Domain

WOLFE, Justice.
I concur. I do not think it would have been error under the facts of this case for the court to have refused to give an instruction on murder in the second degree. The evidence from which the jury could and did infer a killing of Delk by the defendant was such as to preclude any other reasonable inference than that if Matteri was guilty of the killing, he did it deliberately and with premeditation and with robbery as the motive. The only other alternatives were either that Matteri did not kill Delk, in which case he would not have been guilty of murder in any degree, or that he got in a fight with Delk and killed him upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Unlike the Trujillo case, there is no basis in the evidence for the latter alternative, and unlike the Trujillo case there is no evidentiary basis for an instruction on murder in the second degree. Matteri himself was the only one who could furnish such basis of evidence and he remained mute. To put to the jury an issue with no basis of evidence to support it leaves them to unadulterated guessing and speculation. In the Trujillo case, the background furnished a sufficient basis of evidence to permit a choice of determining whether there was a deliberate and premeditated intention to kill — murder in the first degree — or whether the killing was upon a sudden quarrel — voluntary manslaughter — or an intent to do only great bodily harm, or a sudden and unpremeditated or un-thought-out intent to kill — any of which would have justi*159fied the jury in finding murder in the second degree which degree I, in the Trujillo case, termed a residual category of murder.
In this case, the same evidence from which the jury could infer that Matteri killed Delk necessarily raised the inference that he killed him for gain and that, therefore, the killing was planned and deliberate. The evidence all came in one closely-knit package. The choice was one only between deliberate and premeditated intention to kill — murder in the first degree — or that he did not kill Delk. To permit the jury to speculate in the dark with no evidentiary basis as to whether the killing was unintentional or with sudden and unpremeditated intention or in a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion would have been error. That the trial court did instruct on second degree murder was unnecessary, but the error was in favor of the defendant and he can not complain. This was a case under the facts of “all or nothing.” So far as murder is concerned, it was done with premeditated intent or was not murder at all. But I have no complaint with the statement of Mr. Chief Justice PRATT that the jury must have determined that Matteri committed murder in the first degree in the light of a choice given by the court between first and second degree murder. I would only differ in this, that the court should have given the jury a choice only between not guilty and guilty of murder in the first degree, and that even after it withdrew from the jury the issue of whether Mat-teri had killed Delk in the course of committing a robbery. True, the cases may be rare in which when all the evidence adduced is circumstantial, the court could be safe in omitting an instruction on second-degree murder. But it must be kept in mind that in cases of solely circumstantial evidence, the circumstances may fit together in perfect jigsaw fashion and so fitting together make a stronger case than many cases where the testimony is furnished by witnesses who testify as to facts derived through their senses. This *160is one of those cases. As says the main opinion, the California court had no difficulty with a strikingly parallel and similar case. See People v. Watts, 198 Cal. 776, 247 P. 884, discussed in the main opinion.
In a very recent California case, People v. Lloyd, Cal. App. 220 P. 2d 10, 14, in which there was only circumstantial evidence but meshing in a peculiarly convincing fashion, the court said:
“Appellant intended to say that the court prejudiced the prisoner by not charging on second-degree murder and in not preparing a blank verdict accordingly. The facts established by the prosecution witnesses prove nothing short of murder in the first degree. Since appellant denied in to to such testimony, denied his presence on the premises of the deceased on the night of the murder, why should the court have confused the sole issue of murder in the first degree with instructions concerning, and definitions of, crimes included in the crime charged? In charging a.jury, the court should be guided by the facts proved. When a person is accused of murder in the first degree, if the evidence is of such nature as to warrant a verdict for no lesser crime, if the defendant is guilty at all, the court should refuse to instruct as to crimes included within first-degree murder. By so doing the court does no violence to the constitutional inhibition against instructing with respect to matters of fact. People v. Watts, 198 Cal. 776, 793-794, 247 P. 887. Thus, the court below was wholly justified in not charging with respect to second-degree murder or any less savage offense since there was no evidence tending to show such milder crimes. 198 Cal. at page 794, 247 P. at page 887. The same question was raised in People v. Sameniego, 118 Cal. App. 165, 171, 4 P. 2d 809, 5 P. 2d 653, wherein the appellant accused of first-degree murder contended that the court erred in not instructing the jury as to the law of murder in the second degree in order that the jury might return a verdict for the lesser offense. The contention was rejected for the reason that all the evidence proved that the homicide was a murder of the first degree. Just as in the Watts case, supra, there was no evidence in mitigation, justification or excuse; and as in the case at bar the totality of their efforts was devoted to establishing an alibi.”1
In our jurisdiction, as in others, the failure of the defendant to go on the stand is not to be held against him and the law expressly provides that his failure to be a witness *161on his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him or be used against him in the trial or proceeding. Instruction no. 5 told the jury that “the failure of the defendant to testify is not even a circumstance against him and no presumption of guilt can be indulged in by the jury on account of such failure on his part.” Be that as it may, no power in heaven or on earth can prevent the minds of the jury from being adversely influenced against the accused by reason of his failure to testify when the evidence is to the effect that he disposed by fraud and forgery of the personal property and effects of a person, the condition of whose body when found furnishes plain, unmistakable evidence of foul play. In Judge Rudolph’s dissenting opinion in State v. Wolfe, 64 S. D. 178, 266 N. W. 116, 122, 104 A. L. R. 464, the following statement attributed to Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES (while Secretary of State in 1924) is quoted:
“* * * It is clear that reversals because a prosecuting lattorney has directed the attention of the jury to a circumstance which no intelligent person can help taking into consideration of his own accord, should have no place in any well-ordered system of criminal procedure.”
I incline to the view that the constitutional protection of the accused being required to testify against himself was aimed only at direct compulsion and not at protecting him against inferences which might be drawn from his failure to testify when the circumstantial evidence is such as to point glaringly at him as the killer and he is the one person who could explain or rebut the potent references from the circumstances. But I accept at this time the rule that requires that nothing be made by the State of the failure of the accused to testify. Yet as was said in State v. Hillstrom, 46 Utah 341, 150 P. 935, 942:
“* * * While the proven facts and inferences against him are neither strengthened nor weakened by his mere silence or failure to take the stand, yet when he, with his peculiar knowledge of facts remains silent, or has evidence in his power by which he may repel or rebut such proven facts and inferences, and chooses not to avail himself of it, he must suffer the con*162sequences of whatever the facts and inferences adduced against him tend fairly and reasonably to prove.”

"1. See 8 Cal. Jur. p. 378 where the editor sets forth an extensive array of authorities and includes an intelligent section (410) in support of the doctrine.”