PEOPLE v. FARLEY
Filed 7/2/09 (reposted same date to correct participating concurring justices)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
)
v. )
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 123146
__________________________________ )
STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I.
Grijalva asked defendant about the victims, inquiring, Other than Laura, do you know any of the people you shot today? Defendant responded, No. Grijalva asked, So you dont even know them personally? Defendant confirmed, I dont know them personally, no. In fact, I have no idea who half of them were. . . . [] . . . [] I have to tell you, though, that if Id recognized Peterson, I think I would have shot him, realistically. Because I was pissed at him. I mean, him and [Blacks attorney], . . . if they had come into my sights, I would have got them. Defendant described how he went up to Lauras office, yeah, and then she tried to shove the door thing, so I fired around . . . through the door. And then . . . she fell against it.
Defendant asked whether Black had survived. When Grijalva said he did not know, defendant responded, I hope shes doing good. . . . [I]f the slug did catch her, or the whatever it was that I hit her with, she cant regret it if she doesnt live. And that was . . . my feelings at the time. During his conversations with Grijalva, defendant never expressed any remorse for the seven individuals killed.
At approximately 8:30 p.m., defendant surrendered to the police after requesting and receiving the promise of a sandwich and a soft drink. Toxicology analysis of his blood did not show the presence of either alcohol or drugs.
Inside M-5, the police discovered a Benelli riot configuration semiautomatic shotgun, a rifle with a scope, a pump-action shotgun, a Sentinel revolver, a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver, a Browning semiautomatic pistol, a Smith & Wesson pistol, a smoke bomb, a leather glove, a belt with pouches filled with ammunition, other bags containing more than 200 rounds of ammunition, and a vest containing more than 800 rounds of ammunition, wooden matches, a foot-long buck knife and sheath, and ear protectors. A search of the motor home found in the ESL parking lot disclosed four gallons of gasoline, a loaded semiautomatic pistol, and more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition. A search of defendants residence revealed a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun barrel, a Ruger .22-caliber carbine, a gun clip, a gas mask, ammunition and empty boxes of ammunition, a reloading press, three cans of gunpowder, and gun-cleaning equipment. Various documents including the TRO, the notice in lieu of subpoena, and the motor home rental agreement, were on the dining room table. Defendants will was in plain view on top of a computer terminal.
On February 23, 1988, defendant said to another prisoner, I think they should be lenient since its my first offense. After the other prisoner made a comment, defendant replied, If I did it again, then they should throw the book at me. The tone was conversational, and not joking or agitated.
In March 1988, defendant wrote to Black, When I go to the gas chamber, Ill smile for the cameras and youll know that youll have won in the end. In April 1988, he wrote to Chrysler Credit Corporation, Im in jail and will no longer be able to make payments. [] I would like the previous bank to know, its harassing letters and failure to allow me to purchase the car were contributing factors to the death of seven innocent people. It was signed, Rich Farley [] mass murderer.
On March 11, 1989, defendant wrote to his friend Tom Burch, Im glad Lauras ok. . . . I hope she understands if Id really wanted to hurt her she wouldnt be here today.
2. Defense Evidence
a. Defendants testimony
Defendant was born on July 25, 1948 at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. His father was an aircraft mechanic in the Air Force, and his mother was a homemaker. The family moved frequently before settling in Petaluma when he was seven or eight years of age. He graduated from high school and attended one year of junior college. He then enlisted in the Navy in 1967, and served for 10 years. He worked in cryptologic technician maintenance, which involved working with classified electronic systems, and traveled extensively.
In October 1977, upon his discharge from the Navy, he began working for ESL. Initially he was employed at the Sunnyvale facility, and then worked as a field service engineer for five years in Australia. He returned to the Sunnyvale facility in 1984. In the middle of July 1984, defendant met Laura Black and fell instantly in love with her. Approximately one month later, Black agreed to go to lunch with defendant and his friend Burch. That lunch was defendants and Blacks sole social outing.
Defendant described the steps he took to surreptitiously learn Blacks birthday, home address, academic background, residence address, the addresses of her relatives, and her schedule, and how he obtained copies of her office, desk, and residence keys. At the time defendant was obtaining information about Black, he did not believe his actions were wrong. He explained that the environments in which he had worked fostered an attitude that gathering information was not wrong. In the Navy and at ESL, he was granted security clearances, and his access to information gave him a feeling of power. His work in the Navy and in Australia involved spying, and he saw no difference between the governments authority to spy and his ability to spy, so long as . . . I didnt harm anybody. He developed a sense that, with secret information, I can, in essence, get away with things that normal people wouldnt be able to get away with. . . . In other words, we go into like a[n] elite society.
Defendant testified concerning his attempts to socialize with Black, and her rejection of him. He testified he made his letters more threatening so that Black would speak to him, but [a]s I read the letters now, they seem much more intimidating and much more threatening than what I really intended them to be at the time that I wrote them.
Defendant contradicted the testimony of many other witnesses. He denied telling human resources employee Jean Tuffley that if he was terminated he would have nothing to live for, that he had guns and knew how to use them, or that he would take people with him. He claimed he did not threaten Tuffley and others. He asserted he did not tell laboratory manager Evor Vattuone that he had guns and was not afraid to use them. According to defendant, he and Vattuone had spoken about defendants losing his job, not about restraining orders. He denied that he and Dennis Elliott discussed Laura Black, and denied that Elliott told him that he could lose his job and his clearances. He asserted he was not angry when ESL terminated him, did not know Gerald Hirst, and did not make a reference to the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre when speaking with Tom Burch. He also claimed he was not angry when he received the TRO, although he was annoyed by the request for $1,000 and by the term in the restraining order prohibiting him from going to the fitness center to which Black and defendant belonged. He denied speaking to Carolyn Gagnon or attempting to see the president of Santa Clara University. He also asserted he did not attempt to get his paycheck early on February 16 and did not tell Linda Emerson, the accounting manager, that he needed his check so he could buy a gun.
Defendant also testified concerning some of his activities in the days preceding the commission of the crimes. He sold his Suburban truck on Thursday February 11, placing a sale advertisement the Monday or Tuesday prior to that date. He claimed he did not visit Big Horn Sporting Good Store until February 11 and went there to look at paintball shooters.[1] He purchased the Benelli shotgun because it happened to be there and because he liked and wanted it. He explained that he moved two guns from a former residence the weekend before committing the crimes, because he wanted to display his gun collection to Black. He stated he bought the ammunition vest a day or so before committing the crimes.
Defendant testified he went to ESL on February 16 to convince Black not to proceed with her legal action against him. He stated he also planned to intimidate Black into entering the motor home and to take photographs of her to demonstrate at the court hearing that he and Black had a personal relationship. He also wanted to show his sizeable gun collection to Black in order to convince her not to appear in court the next day. Defendant agreed with the prosecutor that he wanted Black to believe he would kill persons at ESL if she went through with obtaining the restraining order. Defendant added, however, that his planned demonstration was just all bluff. He claimed that if none of his plans worked, he planned to kill himself in front of Black.
Defendant testified that after he arrived at ESL, he loaded ammunition in an ammunition vest to keep myself busy. He stated that he put holstered guns, clip boxes, ammunition pouches, and a knife on his belt because he was bored. Consequently, he testified, he was wearing his .380 in front, the ammo pouch in front, .357 magnum to my right side, the .22 magnum behind it, a large buck knife behind that, numerous clips around the other side, and my vest, my nine millimeter, my two shotguns, and I tied a cord around the .22-250 and just draped it over me. He recalled that he then put on his left leather glove and earplugs. At this point he did not believe he could go through with talking to Black or taking photographs of her, because that was not the kind of behavior that I had ever done before, and he agreed with the prosecutor that it was tougher to take the pictures than to kill myself. He testified that he decided instead to go to Blacks office and commit suicide in front of her. He claimed that, other than shooting the front door to gain entrance to ESLs facility, he did not intend to do any damage to ESL or to shoot anyone but himself.
Defendant had a vague recollection of the ensuing events. He recalled that in the parking lot, he saw somebody behind me with his arm raised, and I remember the gun going off once or twice. He remembered shooting through the Mardex doors. He testified that someone rushed by him and then turned around to come back at him, and he recalled firing repeatedly and the person disappearing. He next remembered being on the landing and becoming aware of someone at the bottom of the stairs. Defendant recalled shooting, adding: The only thing Im thinking is to get to Lauras office. These people pop up and I just shoot.
Defendant next remembered being at Blacks office. He recalled that her back was to him, and she turned around smiling, but the smile disappeared as soon as she saw me. Defendant testified he was stunned by the smile, and as he looked at the smile, the gun went off. He distinctly remember[ed] not having any idea how the thing went off. He testified that the door closed in his face.
Defendants recall of the ensuing events was fragmented and lacked chronological order. He testified that at some point he watched an armed person walking down the hallway, who apparently was himself. He remembered shooting a door lock, but was not aware of anyone being behind the door. He remembered seeing Linda Walden, his former landlady. He testified that he told her to come out from under the desk, and that she asked whether there was something she could do for him. He told her no, to get out, which she did. He recalled that another woman asked whether she also could go, and I told her she could. He testified that he felt he had to move from telephone to telephone because he did not want his calls traced to his location.
Defendant testified he did not know any of the victims except Black. He did not remember shooting any equipment, but did remember seeing that the equipment was damaged. There was, however, no doubt in his mind at trial that he shot the individuals killed on February 16, 1988, and damaged the equipment.
Defendant did not recall many of the unrecorded statements he made while he was inside the M-5 building. With respect to his recorded statement, defendant testified that he repeatedly lied to Grijalva regarding why he went to ESL, in order to avoid being placed in a mental institution. He expressed confusion concerning why he made some incriminating remarks during the recorded statement and gave benign explanations for others. He testified he was not angry at ESL and never wanted to hurt Black.
b. Expert testimony
Dr. Charles Raymond Marmar, a psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center, testified for the defense as an expert on the role of stress in dissociative disorders. He did not examine or test defendant, and expressed no opinion regarding defendants mental state. Marmar testified that peritraumatic trans disassociation refers to disassociation occurring at the time a stressful or traumatic event is taking place. He explained that such dissociative experiences have some or all of the following features: (1) blanking out, or feeling unconnected with the experience, (2) going on auto-pilot, rather than performing consciously decided willful acts; (3) experiencing an altered sense of the passage of time; (4) depersonalizing the experience so that it appears to be happening to someone else; (5) feeling outside ones own body and watching oneself from the outside; (6) perceiving a visual change in ones own body or the physical world; (7) experiencing confusion about what is happening to other individuals and to oneself, for example thinking when a family member is injured that oneself is the person injured; (8) experiencing psychological amnesia, or not remembering all or parts of the experience; and (9) not feeling physical pain from an injury at the time of the trauma. According to Marmar, [T]he single most important factor that leads people to disassociation is a highly stressful or traumatic life experience. He explained that the person is faced with catastrophic consequences to themselves and others at the time of the event and . . . [the persons] mind cannot comprehend and fully accept whats happening to them. He testified that a decision to kill oneself can result in such disassociation. He further testified that although struggling with a combination of chronic financial, emotional, and legal stresses generally would not result in disassociation, such struggles might weaken the person and leave them vulnerable to disassociation. According to Marmar, a person in a dissociative state may not appear bizarre or psychotic, but may seem merely spaced out, a little confused, or highly preoccupied. Marmar explained that the veracity of a persons reported experience of disassociation may be evaluated through interviews with family and friends, as well as through various tests.
3. Rebuttal Evidence
Mark McGinnis testified that on February 11, 1988, he purchased a 1984 Suburban diesel truck from defendant. According to McGinnis, the asking price of $5,000 was about twenty-five percent of its value. McGinnis looked at the truck, which needed the transmission repaired, and purchased it for $4,500. McGinnis testified that defendant was nervous and fidgety. McGinnis drove the truck for more than two years in conjunction with his business, and then sold it for $9,000.
Richard Newbold testified that he worked with Jean Tuffley for at least five or six years. At some point in the one to three months before Newbold left ESL in mid-April 1986, Tuffley told Newbold that defendant had threatened to kill her. Newbold described Tuffley as very distraught. According to Newbold, Tuffley was a pretty level-headed person, and he had not seen her like that previously.
Peri Vattuone was married to Evor Vattuone. She testified that at some point in early 1986, Evor came home from work upset. He said he had just had a long conversation with defendant, who had said things that scared him. Peri testified that one such statement was that defendant possessed guns and knew how to use them, or something to that effect.
B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution evidence
The prosecution did not present any additional evidence.
2. Defense evidence
a. From relatives and friends
Mina Belle Farley, defendants mother, testified that she married defendants father in 1947, and they remained married at the time of trial. Defendants father was an airplane mechanic in the Air Force. They had six children, of whom defendant was the eldest. The family moved frequently, but when defendant was about seven years of age, they settled in Petaluma. His mother described him as a very quiet boy who required little attention from his parents. In high school he was quiet, and did not smoke, drink, or use drugs. His mother testified that he spent much of his time studying, and also played table tennis and chess, enjoyed photography, and baked. His high school grades were very good, and he graduated 61st out of 520 high school students.
Mina Farley testified that defendants father spent long periods of time away from the family while he was in the Air Force, but when he was home, he would spend time with the children. She stated that he retired from the Air Force in 1960, and then worked as a school custodian, spending little time with defendant because of his work schedule. According to her, there was much love in the house, but the family displayed little outward affection.
Mina Farley testified that she did not see defendant often after he joined the Navy. In 1973, she and her husband moved to Texas, where they resided at the time of trial. She recalled that defendant visited them in Texas twice between 1973 and 1988, and that the most recent occasion on which she had seen defendant prior to February 16, 1988, was in 1986 or 1987, while she was visiting her daughter.
Defendants mother also recalled that when defendant was 10 years of age, he helped care for his younger siblings while she was in the hospital and his father was stationed in Japan. She testified that defendant did not have a bad temper, nor did she ever see him act violently toward his siblings. She stated she was shocked when she heard about the ESL shootings, [b]ecause that wasnt Rick. She testified she loved him and was proud of the fact that he tried to obtain an education, did not run around, and did not smoke, consume alcohol, or use illegal drugs.
Gregory Farley, defendants brother, testified that defendant was nonviolent while growing up. He recalled that when defendant was about 10 years of age, and Gregory was six years of age, Gregory, who could not swim, fell into a swimming pool and defendant rescued him. He also recalled that defendant helped him learn to drive, and sold him a vehicle at a very low price. Defendants brother described defendant as someone from whom he could seek advice, although he could not recall any specific occasion on which he had done so. Defendants brother had resided in Germany since 1972, and at the time defendant was arrested he had not seen defendant in 16 years. The brother also stated they never wrote to each other or spoke by telephone. He agreed that heprobably did not know defendant at all as an adult, and that the person he knew as a child was totally different from a person who would commit these crimes.
Lois Eaquinto resided on the same street in Petaluma as defendant when he was growing up, and was close to his mother. She testified that defendants home was well-kept. She stated that defendants brothers, but not defendant, joined her boys in attending church services. She also stated that defendants father was absent in the military much of the time, and she could not recall ever having had a conversation with him. According to Eaquinto, when defendants father was home everything revolved around him, and defendant and his brothers did not play with Eaquintos boys during those periods. Eaquinto witnessed little interaction between defendant and his parents, and little reaction by the parents to their childrens accomplishments. She also testified that defendant sometimes was real rough with his brothers, sitting on them and twisting their arms and stepping on their fingers.
Loiss son, Francis Eaquinto, was the same age as defendant, and they played and attended school together. Francis testified that defendant was the smarter of the two, was more interested in math and science, and was conscientious about his schoolwork. He recalled that defendants father was strict, but Francis felt welcome at defendants house when the father was home. Francis had not seen defendant since graduating from high school.
George Duisman grew up on the same street as defendant, and was defendants best friend when they were teenagers. He testified they played table tennis, chess, and bridge, and enjoyed chemistry and math. According to Duisman, defendant did well in school and was not violent.
Thomas Vail met defendant when defendant was a teenager. Vail testified that defendant was well-mannered and had a curious mind. He stated that defendant and Duisman studied bridge, and that defendant was not violent.
Dianne Mahan had at least one class with defendant in high school. She testified that they were not friends socially, and that defendant was quiet and studious.
In defendants senior year of high school, Paula Stonitsch taught his class in American Institutions. Stonitsch testified that although he received a C in her class, he was a very good student.
b. Defendants service in the Navy
Joseph Armas, an expert in the interpretation of military service records and performance evaluations, testified regarding defendants military record. According to Armas, several tests were administered to defendant during his first three weeks in the Navy. He performed well on the General Classification Test and on tests for mechanical abilities, electric selection, clerical abilities, arithmetic, sonar, and programming aptitude, but did not do well on the foreign language aptitude test. Defendant volunteered for submarine duty, and after taking extensive psychological and agility tests, was recommended for that duty. He graduated first in his class of six at Naval Submarine School, but did not remain in the submarine program, apparently withdrawing voluntarily. Defendant received high evaluations during his two enlistment periods (1968 to 1971 and 1971 to 1977) and was honorably discharged at the conclusion of each enlistment period.
Kent Wells, a Navy personnel security specialist, testified concerning defendants work in the military and at ESL. After finishing basic training, defendant was trained to be a cryptologic technician a person who maintains electronic equipment. Wells testified that there were three levels of security clearance, the lowest being confidential, the middle being secret, and the highest being top-secret. Because the Navys cryptologic function was a highly classified mission, the Office of Naval Intelligence investigated all cryptologic technicians to determine whether they could be granted not only top-secret clearance, but also access to very sensitive compartmented information that others with top-secret clearance could access on only a need to know basis. The security clearances received by defendant could be granted only to individuals who were found to be trustworthy, reliable, of unquestioned character, and loyal to the government of the United States. The investigation was repeated every five years to check for intervening disqualifying information. Defendant was granted top-secret clearance and access to sensitive compartmented information in November 1968, and throughout his naval career he performed work that required top-security clearances.
Wells further testified that at the time defendant served in the Naval Security Group, the Groups national defense mission was to collect certain intelligence information about adversaries and to disseminate that information to the military and to various intelligence agencies. Defendant contributed to the security of the United States by maintaining the Naval Security Groups equipment, thereby enabling the gathering of information. Wells agreed with defense counsel that, in this context, defendant was vital to the national defense, testifying that much of defendants work still was classified at the time of trial. Defendant also maintained equipment that assisted in search and rescue missions for aircraft or ships in distress, and thereby helped to save lives as well as ships and aircraft.
TO BE CONTINUED AS PART III.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Mei Chang testified that she accompanied defendant to a paintball event about January 1988, and that he expressed interest in participating.
