People v. Walker
1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2026, 193 Cal.Rptr. 812, 145 Cal. App. 3d 886 (1983)
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as established in Massiah v. United States, applies only to specific, charged offenses and does not extend to new, uncharged criminal activity initiated by the defendant. Additionally, a witness who refuses to testify in court despite reasonable efforts by the court to compel their testimony, including grants of immunity, can be deemed unavailable, allowing their prior testimony to be admitted.
Facts:
- In the early morning hours of June 7, 1981, officers found Susie Walker in her master bedroom with massive head injuries.
- Susie Walker remained in a coma for eight days and died on June 15, 1981, from multiple blunt injuries to the head and neck caused by a blunt object.
- Jefferson D. Walker, Susie Walker's husband, told officers he was struck over the head by an unknown assailant and reported a broken kitchen window and disturbed stereo, attempting to stage the scene as a burglary.
- Tommy Lee Olsen, a close friend of Walker, later testified that Walker had discussed plans to 'do away with' his wife and that Olsen had helped Walker stage the burglary scene by carrying away property and leaving methamphetamine.
- Walker admitted to long-term deliberation of his wife's murder, rejecting divorce or suicide as options, and chose to kill her for selfish motives to gain his freedom.
- While in jail following his arrest for his wife's murder in August 1981, Walker solicited his cellmate, Charles Bell, to murder Tommy Lee Olsen, a potential witness against him.
- After his release from jail without charges, Walker visited Bell in jail twice to discuss the agreement for Bell to murder Olsen, unaware that Bell had informed the police and would be recording their subsequent phone conversation.
- In early 1982, while in custody for murder and represented by counsel, Walker initiated phone conversations with Susie Walker’s sister, Sherrill Anderson, which the prosecuting attorney authorized Anderson to record without directing her conduct or questions.
Procedural Posture:
- Jefferson D. Walker was arrested for the murder of his wife and later charged with first degree murder and soliciting the murder of Tommy Lee Olsen.
- At Walker's preliminary examination, Charles Bell testified regarding Walker's solicitation of him to murder Olsen and was cross-examined by Walker's counsel.
- At trial, the People called Charles Bell to testify, but Bell steadfastly refused to answer any questions despite being ordered by the court, threatened with contempt, and granted immunity.
- The trial court declared Bell an 'unavailable' witness and permitted his direct and cross-examination testimony from the preliminary examination to be introduced into evidence.
- The trial court ordered the suppression of tape recordings made by Sherrill Anderson (Susie Walker's sister) of phone conversations with Walker but denied Walker's motion for the additional sanctions of dismissal or requiring the prosecution to prove their case was not derived from the tapes.
- The trial court refused to give Walker's requested jury instruction related to his marital relationship and state of mind.
- A jury returned verdicts finding Walker guilty of first degree murder with infliction of great bodily injury and guilty of soliciting another to commit murder.
- Walker appealed the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdicts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is a witness legally unavailable, permitting their prior testimony to be read to the jury, when they refuse to testify at trial despite a court order, threat of contempt, and grant of immunity? 2. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibit the admission of statements made by a defendant about a new, uncharged crime to a police informant, even if the defendant is represented by counsel on an unrelated, previously charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Elkington, Acting P. J.
Yes, a witness is legally unavailable, permitting their prior testimony to be read to the jury, when they refuse to testify at trial despite a court order, threat of contempt, and grant of immunity. The court, citing Mason v. United States and People v. Sul, held that the critical factor is whether the witness's testimony is available, not merely their physical presence. The trial court made reasonable efforts to compel Charles Bell's testimony by ordering him to testify, threatening contempt, and granting immunity. Given Bell's steadfast refusal and his potential 60-year incarceration, further efforts would have been unproductive. Therefore, the trial court correctly declared Bell unavailable and allowed his preliminary examination testimony to be admitted. No, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not prohibit the admission of statements made by a defendant about a new, uncharged crime to a police informant, even if the defendant is represented by counsel on an unrelated, previously charged offense. The court distinguished this case from Massiah v. United States, noting that Massiah's right to counsel was violated because police deliberately elicited incriminating statements about the presently charged offense. Here, Walker was engaging in a new and different crime (solicitation of murder) for which he was not yet represented by counsel. The police were lawfully investigating this ongoing, uncharged crime without infringing on Walker's Sixth Amendment rights concerning the separate murder charge. Regarding the tape recordings made by Sherrill Anderson, the court affirmed that suppression of the recorded conversations was a legally sufficient sanction. It found no actual invasion of the attorney-client relationship, distinguishing the facts from Barber v. Municipal Court where a police agent infiltrated confidential attorney-client strategy sessions. Dismissal of a prosecution is considered an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where the state's conduct has severely prejudiced the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial, which was not found to be the case here. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court's failure to give Walker's requested jury instruction was not prejudicial error. The requested instruction, which related particular facts such as the 'personalities of Jeff and Susie Walker' and 'how he perceived' their marital relationship, was not directed at a 'legal issue' relevant to the case, especially given Walker's admissions of premeditation and deliberation. Such an instruction would have improperly singled out Walker's testimony, which is contrary to settled law.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, reaffirming that it is offense-specific and does not automatically extend to new, uncharged criminal activity, even if the defendant has counsel for other offenses. It also strengthens the precedent regarding witness unavailability, particularly when a physically present witness refuses to testify, highlighting the importance of the court's reasonable efforts to compel testimony. The ruling also provides guidance on appropriate sanctions for investigatory misconduct, indicating that suppression of evidence is typically sufficient unless there's a blatant and disabling intrusion into the attorney-client relationship that prevents a fair trial.
