People v. Powell

40 Cal. App. 3d 107, 115 Cal. Rptr. 109, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 851
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 26, 1974
DocketDocket Nos. 22227, 18355
StatusPublished
Cited by94 cases

This text of 40 Cal. App. 3d 107 (People v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Powell, 40 Cal. App. 3d 107, 115 Cal. Rptr. 109, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

*116 Opinion

VOGEL, J. *

Appellants were convicted in separate trials of first degree murder. Appellant Gregory Ulas Powell was sentenced to death and appellant Jimmy Lee Smith was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Each conviction has come to this court by way of a separate appeal. However, prior to the trial on the merits appellants were jointly prosecuted and almost all of the pretrial proceedings involved common appearances. Because the case arises from a single incident in which both appellants participated and because a majority of the issues on appeal pertain to joint legal proceedings, we dispose of the appeals in one opinion.

Facts

There are no substantial disagreements as to the factual background on which the charge against Powell and Smith is predicated. On March 9, 1963, Smith was a passenger and Powell was the driver of a 1946 Ford automobile. They were driving in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles County. Both men were armed.

The Ford automobile was noticed by two Los Angeles police officers, Ian Campbell and Karl Frank Hettinger. The officers were then assigned to a plainclothes detail in an unmarked 1960 Plymouth automobile. They observed that the 1946 Ford did not have an illuminated rear license plate. The police vehicle followed and the officers directed its red spotlight on the rear window of the vehicle occupied by appellants. Both vehicles made a stop on Gower Street. Campbell was the driver of the police vehicle and brought it to a stop an inordinate distance from the curb and directly behind the Ford. Campbell and Hettinger got out of the police vehicle. They approached the Ford. Campbell went to the driver’s side and Hettinger approached the passenger’s.

When Powell brought the Ford to a stop, Smith removed the hand gun on his person, dropped it to the floor of their automobile and kicked it under the seat. 1 Smith then got out of the Ford and approached Hettinger. Within seconds, Campbell, with Powell behind him, was also moving to the rear of the Ford automobile and approaching Hettinger and the police vehicle. Powell informed Smith and Hettinger that he had “gotten the drop on” Campbell. Campell verified this fact and in *117 formed Hettinger that Powell was armed. Powell directed Smith to take Hettinger’s weapon. Smith complied. The police officers were ordered into the Ford. Before leaving the area, Smith unsuccessfully attempted to move the police vehicle from its conspicuous position. Smith was unable to release the hand brake of the police vehicle and abandoned his effort to reduce its visibility. Smith returned to the Ford where Campbell was in the driver’s seat, Hettinger was behind the front seat on the floorboard and Powell was in the front passenger seat guarding the prisoners. Campbell was ordered to begin driving in the direction of Bakersfield.

During the course of the drive Smith and Powell, located in the front seat, pointed weapons at the police officers and made various threatening statements. Smith and Powell had their own hand guns, the weapons taken from the police officers, as well as the officers’ flashlights. Before reaching their ultimate destination Powell inquired as to the amount of cash Campbell and Hettinger had on them. He ordered Hettinger to give him his currency. Powell took it, but later returned it during the course of the drive. t

When they arrived in Kern County, and before reaching Bakersfield, Campbell was directed to turn on to a secluded dirt road and to drive out into a field. Finally, he was ordered to bring the vehicle to a stop and all four persons got out. Campbell and Hettinger were standing next to each other with Smith and Powell facing them. Powell then asked Campbell whether he had heard of the “Little Lindbergh Law.” Campbell replied affirmatively and Powell raised his gun and shot him in the mouth. Hettinger immediately turned and began to run. He ran down a dirt road, through a fence and into another field. While in flight he turned around and saw three figures: one of them prone, one firing a gun into the prone figure, and the third approaching him. The individual approaching Hettinger fired two shots at him. Hettinger resumed his flight.

Smith and Powell quickly gave chase after Hettinger. Powell took out on foot with a flashlight and Smith took the Ford automobile apparently to use its lights in the search for Hettinger. In the course of this effort Smith and Powell separated. 2

*118 Ultimately, Hettinger found his way to a farm house and made contact with law enforcement authorities, advising them of the events that had transpired. Smith used the automobile to escape from the area, abandoned it near Bakersfield and made his way to a rooming house known as “Mom’s Place.” It was there that Smith was arrested on March 10 sometime after 10:40 p.m. At that location the arresting officers found a leather jacket and a .38 caliber revolver underneath it. The jacket and revolver were located in the room apparently occupied by Smith. The weapon was identified as the one that was taken from Hettinger.

Powell was arrested during the early morning hours on the day after the homicide by a California Highway Patrol officer approximately 20 miles south of Bakersfield. He was then driving a vehicle that had been reported as stolen.

Further factual background will be given where necessary to explain and resolve the issues raised on appeal.

Appellants were previously tried, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. That conviction was reversed by the California Supreme Court and remanded for retrial. (People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 32 [59 Cal.Rptr. 817, 429 P.2d 137].) Thereafter, appellants made numerous pretrial motions, including an application for change of venue and to quash the 1968-1 and 1968-2 jury venire. These motions were denied and another trial on the merits commenced against appellants in a joint proceeding. On the motion of Smith, his then trial counsel was discharged and the case was finally severed in order to permit Smith’s newly appointed counsel to prepare for trial. For that reason Smith’s trial on the merits was delayed to commence after and separate from the trial on the merits as to Powell.

We now turn to the issues raised on appeal designating the same by abbreviated titles and indicating to which appellant each issue pertains.

Smith and Powell Venue

Appellants argue that the Los Angeles Superior Court was without territorial jurisdiction and that venue was actually in Kern County. Appellants strenuously urge that Penal Code section 790 required that the trial be held in Kern County and that Penal Code section 781 3 is not *119 applicable because no element of the offense was accomplished in other than Kern County.

The record plainly shows that the chain of events culminating in the death of Campbell commenced in Los Angeles County where appellants were stopped by the deceased and his partner Hettinger.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Lavoie
California Court of Appeal, 2018
People v. Perez
California Court of Appeal, 2017
People v. Bell
241 Cal. App. 4th 315 (California Court of Appeal, 2015)
People v. Boudolf CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2013
People v. Holloway
91 P.3d 164 (California Supreme Court, 2004)
People v. Gurule
51 P.3d 224 (California Supreme Court, 2002)
People v. Hughes
39 P.3d 432 (California Supreme Court, 2002)
People v. Gbadebo-Soda
38 Cal. App. 4th 160 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Gregory Ulas Powell v. Alfonso Gomez, Warden
33 F.3d 39 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
People v. Mendias
17 Cal. App. 4th 195 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
People v. Von Villas
11 Cal. App. 4th 175 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Campbell
230 Cal. App. 3d 1432 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
People v. McLead
225 Cal. App. 3d 906 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
People v. Mattson
789 P.2d 983 (California Supreme Court, 1990)
Greenberger v. Superior Court
219 Cal. App. 3d 487 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
People v. Bismillah
208 Cal. App. 3d 80 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
In Re Powell
755 P.2d 881 (California Supreme Court, 1988)
People v. Kowalski
196 Cal. App. 3d 174 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Cal. App. 3d 107, 115 Cal. Rptr. 109, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-powell-calctapp-1974.