Case of Albert Junatanov
Hollywood, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Albert Junatanov subjected his sons, his wife, and his mother-in-law to a course of physical and sexual abuse for over 20 years prior to the attempt that was made upon his life.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.
Table of Contents:
Table of Contents:
1985
- Two sons of the owner of a small Hollywood Boulevard restaurant were arrested (08/21/1985)
- The Region (08/21/1985)
- Three more suspects have been arrested (09/24/1985)
- The Region (09/24/1985)
1986
- Fatal means for children to end abuse; parricide cases evoke conflict in sympathy, need for punishment (08/31/1986)
- Abused Son Acquitted In Plot to Kill Father (10/11/1986)
- Jury sides with abused son who plotted dad's death (10/11/1986)
- Son acquitted of trying to murder abusive father (10/11/1986)
- Teen Acquitted in Murder-for-hire plot (10/12/1986)
- Tales of abuse help acquit son of murder try (10/12/1986)
- Victim of child abuse cleared in attempt to kill his father (10/12/1986)
- Children citing self-defense in murder of parents (10/12/1986)
- Abused youth found not guilty in plan to kill father (10/12/1986)
- Teen-ager is cleared of slaying attempt on `brutal' father (10/12/1986)
- Family's 'trials' (10/13/1986)
- Facts on File World News Digest (10/31/1986)
1987
- The Region (02/22/1987)
- A 25-year-old Tulsa, Okla., man who was hired by a teen-age Soviet immigrant to kill the young man's father was sentenced to the maximum penalty (02/22/1987)
1989
- People v. Gragg, 216 Cal. App. 3d 32 (Hired killer's appeal) (11/29/1989)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Two sons of the owner of a small Hollywood Boulevard restaurant were arrested
Los Angeles Times - August 21, 1985, Wednesday, Home Edition
Los Angeles Times - August 21, 1985, Wednesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part 1; Page 2; Column 3; Metro Desk
Two sons of the owner of a small Hollywood Boulevard restaurant were arrested after they allegedly offered $5,000 to an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were booked on suspicion of solicitation of murder, Hollywood Division Detective Lt. Ed Hocking said. Hocking said two previous attempts were made on the life of the father, Albert Junatanov, 45, last month. An unknown assailant stabbed him in the stomach. While the restaurant owner was recovering from his wounds, a woman dressed as a nurse entered his hospital room and injected a caustic substance into his arm. Quick action by personnel of the hospital, whom Hocking refused to identify, saved the man's life. Hocking said arrests in connection with the two attacks are expected soon.
The Region
Los Angeles Times - September 21, 1985
Two sons of the owner of a small Hollywood Boulevard restaurant were arrested after they allegedly offered $5,000 to an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were booked on suspicion of solicitation of murder, Hollywood Division Detective Lt. Ed Hocking said. Hocking said two previous attempts were made on the life of the father, Albert Junatanov, 45, last month. An unknown assailant stabbed him in the stomach. While the restaurant owner was recovering from his wounds, a woman dressed as a nurse entered his hospital room and injected a caustic substance into his arm. Quick action by personnel of the hospital, whom Hocking refused to identify, saved the man's life. Hocking said arrests in connection with the two attacks are expected soon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Region
Los Angeles Times - September 21, 1985
Two sons of the owner of a small Hollywood Boulevard restaurant were arrested after they allegedly offered $5,000 to an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were booked on suspicion of solicitation of murder, Hollywood Division Detective Lt. Ed Hocking said. Hocking said two previous attempts were made on the life of the father, Albert Junatanov, 45, last month. An unknown assailant stabbed him in the stomach. While the restaurant owner was recovering from his wounds, a woman dressed as a nurse entered his hospital room and injected a caustic substance into his arm. Quick action by personnel of the hospital, whom Hocking refused to identify, saved the man's life. Hocking said arrests in connection with the two attacks are expected soon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Three more suspects have been arrested
Los Angeles Times - September 24, 1985
Home Edition, SECTION: Part 1; Page 2; Column 4; Metro Desk
Three more suspects have been arrested in what police said appears to be a series of attempts by the sons of a Hollywood Boulevard restaurant owner to have their father killed. Derrick R. Plantt, 27, of Hollywood, Richard Gregg , 24, of Tulsa, Okla., and a 17-year-old girl are in custody in connection with an assault last July on Albert Junatanov, 45, in his room at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, where he was recovering from a stab wound in the stomach. Police said the girl, dressed as a nurse, allegedly injected Junatanov with a caustic substance meant to kill him. It didn't. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were arrested last month and charged with soliciting an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. In all, there have been at least six bungled attempts to have the elder Junatanov killed, detectives said.
Los Angeles Times - September 24, 1985
Home Edition, SECTION: Part 1; Page 2; Column 4; Metro Desk
Three more suspects have been arrested in what police said appears to be a series of attempts by the sons of a Hollywood Boulevard restaurant owner to have their father killed. Derrick R. Plantt, 27, of Hollywood, Richard Gregg , 24, of Tulsa, Okla., and a 17-year-old girl are in custody in connection with an assault last July on Albert Junatanov, 45, in his room at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, where he was recovering from a stab wound in the stomach. Police said the girl, dressed as a nurse, allegedly injected Junatanov with a caustic substance meant to kill him. It didn't. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were arrested last month and charged with soliciting an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. In all, there have been at least six bungled attempts to have the elder Junatanov killed, detectives said.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Region
Los Angeles Times - September 24, 1985
Three more suspects have been arrested in what police said appears to be a series of attempts by the sons of a Hollywood Boulevard restaurant owner to have their father killed. Derrick R. Plantt, 27, of Hollywood, Richard Gregg , 24, of Tulsa, Okla., and a 17-year-old girl are in custody in connection with an assault last July on Albert Junatanov, 45, in his room at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, where he was recovering from a stab wound in the stomach. Police said the girl, dressed as a nurse, allegedly injected Junatanov with a caustic substance meant to kill him. It didn't. Sociz Junatanov, 18, and Asror Junatanov, 21, were arrested last month and charged with soliciting an undercover Los Angeles police officer to kill their father. In all, there have been at least six bungled attempts to have the elder Junatanov killed, detectives said.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fatal means for children to end abuse; parricide cases evoke conflict in sympathy, need for punishment
By LOIS TIMNICK, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times - August 31, 1986
Home Edition, SECTION: Metro; Part 2; Page 1; Column 1; Metro Desk
Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov says he could not run away from the father who he says chained, beat, threatened and humiliated him for 18 years. But there came a day when, finally, "it was too much. I felt I was going to explode," and he decided that killing his tormentor was the only way out.
However, the father survived a stabbing and an injection of battery acid, and the son was arrested after trying to hire an undercover cop to finish the job with a rifle.
The teen-ager, whose trial on charges of attempted murder began last week in Los Angeles Superior Court, has admitted to police and others that he tried to have his father killed. But Junatanov, now 19, pleaded not guilty, saying that he acted in self-defense. He is gambling that a sympathetic jury will believe him when he says that he acted in a desperate attempt to survive.
His father has denied ever hurting or threatening him.
Legal experts say cases involving violence toward parents are becoming more common. While most abused children either endure the mistreatment or run away, many finally reach a breaking point, lashing out in murderous rage.
Nearly 400 homicides a year -- about 2% of the nation's total – are parricides, murders of parents by their children, legal experts say. Many of them come after years of such relentless child abuse that some psychiatrists consider them "a sane reaction to an insane environment."
For example, in recent months in the Los Angeles area alone:
* A 17-year-old Glendale youth, Arnel Salvatierra, has been charged with the shooting death of his father, a Filipino newspaper executive, in February. He tried to disguise the crime as a political assassination, police said. The youth has pleaded not guilty, and the case goes to trial this fall.
The boy's mother testified in pretrial hearings that the elder Salvatierra regularly beat his son with a belt and locked him in a closet for punishment and physically and verbally abused and threatened her and their other children as well.
* A 17-year-old Canoga Park youth, Torran Lee Meier, strangled his mother and shoved a burning car containing her body and his 8-year-old half-brother over a Malibu cliff last October. His brother survived.Meier pleaded not guilty, focusing his defense on psychiatric testimony that brain damage prevented him from fleeing his psychologically abusive mother or releasing his rage against her in normal ways. Witnesses testified that she harangued him for hours, forced him to do chores in the middle of the night and repeatedly berated him as being a "faggot."
Relatives, friends and neighbors rallied to the boy's support, and jurors, in finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and several lesser charges, described his life as "a psychological nightmare." He will be sentenced in November.
* A 16-year-old Fullerton youth, Donald Coday, admitted shooting his father eight times in March of last year, but he said he acted to escape punishment and to end years of physical and emotional abuse by bothparents. He was found guilty of first-degree murder in a non-jury trial and sentenced to the California Youth Authority for a maximum of eight years.
Dozens of similar cases have made headlines throughout the country in the past few years, as a growing number of teen-agers choose to defend their killing of an abusive parent as self-defense or temporary insanity. Most are convicted of their crime, although the severity of the charges and sentences vary widely -- ranging from manslaughter to murder, from probation to 15 years in prison.
Suspended Sentence
Perhaps the most unusual sentence was that of Robert Lee Moody of La Puente, a self-described "born-again" Christian convicted in 1983 of the shotgun killing of his violent and sexually abusive father. After a non-jury trial, the 19-year-old was given a suspended four-year prison sentence with five years' probation -- and ordered to spend at least two years abroad working as a Christian missionary.
The discrepant outcomes of essentially similar cases appear to be the result of the specific circumstances surrounding each murder, the region in which the crime occurred, the sophistication of the defense, the makeup of the jury, the reaction of the judge, and, perhaps most importantly, the strength of the evidence of severe child abuse, say legal experts familiar with recent cases throughout the United States.
"The issue becomes, 'How bad did it (the abuse) get?' " said Los Angeles attorney Paul Mones, author of the only legal review and analysis of parricide cases in this country.
The study, published last year in a clinical textbook, "Unhappy Families," and reprinted in several professional journals, focused on seven recent cases and explored the role of child abuse in such crimes. (Mones, former legal director of the Santa Monica-based Public Justice Foundation, specializes in children's rights and has worked on dozens of parricide cases during the past three years. He is a consultant on the Junatanov case).
Even when the facts are undisputed, parricide cases are difficult for everyone involved, since both murder and child abuse are crimes.
For example, in placing one young killer on 15 years' probation, a Jacksonville, Fla., judge told him: "I do not want you to think in any way that what you have done has been condoned by society. (But) I believe that the chain of violence and abuse that led to this end were brought about by your father's actions rather than by yours."
'Account to Society'
But a Wyoming judge who sentenced another youth to five to 15 years in prison for a similar crime explained: "I'm sure we all have compassion. . . . (But) regardless of the circumstances . . . no one should be permitted to act as prosecutor, jury, judge, court of appeal and executioner without being called to account to society."
He said he feared that granting probation or suspended sentences to children who kill their mothers or fathers would be tantamount to declaring open season on parents.
However, Junatanov's attorney, Joel Isaacson, a court-appointed lawyer who became involved in the case at the request of the Jewish Committee for Personal Service, said he will try to prove that the youth believed that he had to kill his father or be killed.
The Russian-Jewish Junatanov family had emigrated from southeastern Russia to Hollywood, living in Israel, Belgium and New York along the way, he said. They moved frequently, operating ethnic restaurants featuring dancing by the boys' mother, Firuza. She fled her husband, Albert, in 1983, claiming he had abused her. She has returned from Israel to testify for her son.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the restaurant and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of their Brooklyn neighbors. He said he was attached to a chain to prevent any future escapes.
The youth claims that the threats and beatings intensified after Albert Junatanov and his sons moved west and opened a Middle Eastern restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard. After witnessing the elder Junatanov'svolatile behavior, the restaurant's dishwasher suggested a solution, then lined up a drifter from Oklahoma to do the job for $3,000, according to testimony presented at Junatanov's preliminary hearing last November.
Father Stabbed Twice
On a hot afternoon last July, the hired killer walked into the restaurant, bought a soft drink, complained that the video game machine was broken, and stabbed the elder Junatanov twice in the stomach and chestwhile his sons and customers watched, according to preliminary hearing testimony. But the wounds were not fatal, and the assailant went to the victim's room at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center to finish the job. He fled when his victim recognized him and pushed the call button above his bed.
Undaunted, the assailant's girlfriend, a 17-year-old runaway from Oklahoma, was enlisted to help, according to preliminary hearing testimony.
Wearing a nurse's uniform, she calmly entered Junatanov's room and injected him with a syringe filled with battery acid. A forensic toxicologist testified that the fluid would have been fatal in minutes -- except the needle went into the muscle of his upper arm, not into a vein.
Several weeks later the dishwasher, in jail on an auto theft charge, told police about the murder attempt and introduced an undercover officer -- wearing a hidden microphone -- to Johnny Junatanov. In a 15-minute conversation in the restaurant's storeroom, the officer testified at the hearing, Junatanov said he wanted "a job" done on someone, showed the officer a rifle and a photograph of his father, and said he would pay $5,000.
Junatanov was arrested the same night and freely admitted his role in the scheme in a taped confession.
Why didn't the youth just leave instead?
'Psychologically Traumatized'
"Because they (Johnny and his brother) were so psychologically traumatized that they didn't have the self-esteem and confidence to run away," Isaacson said. "They were under the domination and control of this man. . . . They had no life."
Isaacson said evidence that his client was a victim of child abuse will come not only from the youth's testimony and that of numerous other witnesses but also from New York state social service records.
"When I went to child abuse (authorities in New York), nobody helped me out," the teenager told a police investigator on the day that he was arrested last August. "If nobody wants to help us out, we'll do it ourselves," he said he and his older brother, Asror, decided. His older brother pleaded guilty to similar charges and has been given probation.
Johnny Junatanov said that when he was 12 years old, his New York schoolteacher noticed his bruised body and marks from the dog leash that his father had tightened around his neck and contacted child abuse authorities. They came to the family's restaurant, the teen-ager told a reporter last week, "but my father said, 'This is my kid. I'm gonna bring him up the way I want,' and he broke my hand that night."
Shortly thereafter, his father took him out of school and forced him to work in the restaurant 18 hours a day, he said. He was not allowed to go out and had no friends.
Dr. Shervert Frazier, a nationally known expert on violence who directs the National Institute of Mental Health, said the vast majority of children who kill a parent have abusive backgrounds, usually involving an alcoholic parent.
"But there is no such thing as sane killing," he said, taking issue with some of his colleagues who have defended murder as a sometimes appropriate response to an intolerable situation. "That's not a solution. If our society reverts to that, then we don't have laws anymore."
Frazier said a second category involves children who appear to be model youngsters -- compliant, obedient, well-mannered, A-students – although their family relationships are disturbed. They deny and cover up the resentment and hostility that they feel until they reach a breaking point.
Only a fraction of those who commit parricide are psychotic or sociopathic, he said.
The psychiatrist said that while most children who have killed a parent are not likely to ever murder again, they do need treatment -- often drug treatment, long-term intensive psychotherapy, social skills training and family therapy.
Mones, whose study focused on the relationship between child abuse and parricide, said victims of child abuse act in one of three ways.
"The majority take the abuse, and become withdrawn, lack self-confidence," he explained. "And as they get older, they resort to using violence as a problem-solving mechanism -- after all, hitting is what works when Mother and Daddy lose their tempers."
He noted that the Florida judge who gave one youth 15 years' probation said he decided on such a long period out of fear that the youth might perpetuate the cycle of abuse with his own children.
Many run away from home, Mones said. "The majority of several hundred thousand 'missing children' are in fact runaways fleeing from abuse. The majority of those found in runaway shelters have left home to escape abuse. Few have wanderlust; they're not Huck Finn on the Mississippi."
And a small but growing number kill their abuser, then argue that their act should be viewed as self-defense.
These youths tend to come from white, middle- and upper-middle-class backgrounds. (Those from lower economic strata, Mones theorizes, usually have public agencies involved in their life and are more likely to know where to go for help).
More than two-thirds of the killers are physically abused boys; more than three-fourths of the victims are fathers. Girls who commit parricide have usually been both sexually and physically abused. The average age at the time of murder is about 15 1/2 or 16, although Mones said he is aware of one 10-year-old
'Not Runaways'
"They have none of the classic characteristics of juvenile delinquents," Mones said. "They're not runaways, and their worst offense is probably shoplifting or truancy. Most of them are compliant, well-mannered teen-agers of whom people say, 'It would never be so-and-so.' "
GRAPHIC: Photo, Defendant Sociz,(johnny) Junatanov, 19, shown with his lawyer, Joel Isaacson. Al Seib / Los Angeles Times
Abused Son Acquitted In Plot to Kill Father
San Francisco Chronicle - Oct 11, 1986
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a 19-year-old youth accused of trying to murder his abusive father was found not guilty yesterday by sympathetic jurors who believed that he had acted in self-defense.
Sobbing quietly after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors - who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled. I am very surprised and I am very nervous," Junatanov said.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases.
If convicted, Junatanov would have faced up to 13 years in prison.
Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, an Oklahoma drifter hired to stab Junatanov's father, Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter and faces up to 6 1/2 years in prison.
According to testimony, Junatanov hired Gregg in 1985 to kill the elder Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. As Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering from stab wounds, Gregg's girlfriend injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped and humiliated him, as well as threatening to kill him.
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self defense, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
The boy's mother testified in pretrial hearings that the elder Salvatierra regularly beat his son with a belt and locked him in a closet for punishment and physically and verbally abused and threatened her and their other children as well.
* A 17-year-old Canoga Park youth, Torran Lee Meier, strangled his mother and shoved a burning car containing her body and his 8-year-old half-brother over a Malibu cliff last October. His brother survived.Meier pleaded not guilty, focusing his defense on psychiatric testimony that brain damage prevented him from fleeing his psychologically abusive mother or releasing his rage against her in normal ways. Witnesses testified that she harangued him for hours, forced him to do chores in the middle of the night and repeatedly berated him as being a "faggot."
Relatives, friends and neighbors rallied to the boy's support, and jurors, in finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and several lesser charges, described his life as "a psychological nightmare." He will be sentenced in November.
* A 16-year-old Fullerton youth, Donald Coday, admitted shooting his father eight times in March of last year, but he said he acted to escape punishment and to end years of physical and emotional abuse by bothparents. He was found guilty of first-degree murder in a non-jury trial and sentenced to the California Youth Authority for a maximum of eight years.
Dozens of similar cases have made headlines throughout the country in the past few years, as a growing number of teen-agers choose to defend their killing of an abusive parent as self-defense or temporary insanity. Most are convicted of their crime, although the severity of the charges and sentences vary widely -- ranging from manslaughter to murder, from probation to 15 years in prison.
Suspended Sentence
Perhaps the most unusual sentence was that of Robert Lee Moody of La Puente, a self-described "born-again" Christian convicted in 1983 of the shotgun killing of his violent and sexually abusive father. After a non-jury trial, the 19-year-old was given a suspended four-year prison sentence with five years' probation -- and ordered to spend at least two years abroad working as a Christian missionary.
The discrepant outcomes of essentially similar cases appear to be the result of the specific circumstances surrounding each murder, the region in which the crime occurred, the sophistication of the defense, the makeup of the jury, the reaction of the judge, and, perhaps most importantly, the strength of the evidence of severe child abuse, say legal experts familiar with recent cases throughout the United States.
"The issue becomes, 'How bad did it (the abuse) get?' " said Los Angeles attorney Paul Mones, author of the only legal review and analysis of parricide cases in this country.
The study, published last year in a clinical textbook, "Unhappy Families," and reprinted in several professional journals, focused on seven recent cases and explored the role of child abuse in such crimes. (Mones, former legal director of the Santa Monica-based Public Justice Foundation, specializes in children's rights and has worked on dozens of parricide cases during the past three years. He is a consultant on the Junatanov case).
Even when the facts are undisputed, parricide cases are difficult for everyone involved, since both murder and child abuse are crimes.
For example, in placing one young killer on 15 years' probation, a Jacksonville, Fla., judge told him: "I do not want you to think in any way that what you have done has been condoned by society. (But) I believe that the chain of violence and abuse that led to this end were brought about by your father's actions rather than by yours."
'Account to Society'
But a Wyoming judge who sentenced another youth to five to 15 years in prison for a similar crime explained: "I'm sure we all have compassion. . . . (But) regardless of the circumstances . . . no one should be permitted to act as prosecutor, jury, judge, court of appeal and executioner without being called to account to society."
He said he feared that granting probation or suspended sentences to children who kill their mothers or fathers would be tantamount to declaring open season on parents.
However, Junatanov's attorney, Joel Isaacson, a court-appointed lawyer who became involved in the case at the request of the Jewish Committee for Personal Service, said he will try to prove that the youth believed that he had to kill his father or be killed.
The Russian-Jewish Junatanov family had emigrated from southeastern Russia to Hollywood, living in Israel, Belgium and New York along the way, he said. They moved frequently, operating ethnic restaurants featuring dancing by the boys' mother, Firuza. She fled her husband, Albert, in 1983, claiming he had abused her. She has returned from Israel to testify for her son.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the restaurant and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of their Brooklyn neighbors. He said he was attached to a chain to prevent any future escapes.
The youth claims that the threats and beatings intensified after Albert Junatanov and his sons moved west and opened a Middle Eastern restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard. After witnessing the elder Junatanov'svolatile behavior, the restaurant's dishwasher suggested a solution, then lined up a drifter from Oklahoma to do the job for $3,000, according to testimony presented at Junatanov's preliminary hearing last November.
Father Stabbed Twice
On a hot afternoon last July, the hired killer walked into the restaurant, bought a soft drink, complained that the video game machine was broken, and stabbed the elder Junatanov twice in the stomach and chestwhile his sons and customers watched, according to preliminary hearing testimony. But the wounds were not fatal, and the assailant went to the victim's room at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center to finish the job. He fled when his victim recognized him and pushed the call button above his bed.
Undaunted, the assailant's girlfriend, a 17-year-old runaway from Oklahoma, was enlisted to help, according to preliminary hearing testimony.
Wearing a nurse's uniform, she calmly entered Junatanov's room and injected him with a syringe filled with battery acid. A forensic toxicologist testified that the fluid would have been fatal in minutes -- except the needle went into the muscle of his upper arm, not into a vein.
Several weeks later the dishwasher, in jail on an auto theft charge, told police about the murder attempt and introduced an undercover officer -- wearing a hidden microphone -- to Johnny Junatanov. In a 15-minute conversation in the restaurant's storeroom, the officer testified at the hearing, Junatanov said he wanted "a job" done on someone, showed the officer a rifle and a photograph of his father, and said he would pay $5,000.
Junatanov was arrested the same night and freely admitted his role in the scheme in a taped confession.
Why didn't the youth just leave instead?
'Psychologically Traumatized'
"Because they (Johnny and his brother) were so psychologically traumatized that they didn't have the self-esteem and confidence to run away," Isaacson said. "They were under the domination and control of this man. . . . They had no life."
Isaacson said evidence that his client was a victim of child abuse will come not only from the youth's testimony and that of numerous other witnesses but also from New York state social service records.
"When I went to child abuse (authorities in New York), nobody helped me out," the teenager told a police investigator on the day that he was arrested last August. "If nobody wants to help us out, we'll do it ourselves," he said he and his older brother, Asror, decided. His older brother pleaded guilty to similar charges and has been given probation.
Johnny Junatanov said that when he was 12 years old, his New York schoolteacher noticed his bruised body and marks from the dog leash that his father had tightened around his neck and contacted child abuse authorities. They came to the family's restaurant, the teen-ager told a reporter last week, "but my father said, 'This is my kid. I'm gonna bring him up the way I want,' and he broke my hand that night."
Shortly thereafter, his father took him out of school and forced him to work in the restaurant 18 hours a day, he said. He was not allowed to go out and had no friends.
Dr. Shervert Frazier, a nationally known expert on violence who directs the National Institute of Mental Health, said the vast majority of children who kill a parent have abusive backgrounds, usually involving an alcoholic parent.
"But there is no such thing as sane killing," he said, taking issue with some of his colleagues who have defended murder as a sometimes appropriate response to an intolerable situation. "That's not a solution. If our society reverts to that, then we don't have laws anymore."
Frazier said a second category involves children who appear to be model youngsters -- compliant, obedient, well-mannered, A-students – although their family relationships are disturbed. They deny and cover up the resentment and hostility that they feel until they reach a breaking point.
Only a fraction of those who commit parricide are psychotic or sociopathic, he said.
The psychiatrist said that while most children who have killed a parent are not likely to ever murder again, they do need treatment -- often drug treatment, long-term intensive psychotherapy, social skills training and family therapy.
Mones, whose study focused on the relationship between child abuse and parricide, said victims of child abuse act in one of three ways.
"The majority take the abuse, and become withdrawn, lack self-confidence," he explained. "And as they get older, they resort to using violence as a problem-solving mechanism -- after all, hitting is what works when Mother and Daddy lose their tempers."
He noted that the Florida judge who gave one youth 15 years' probation said he decided on such a long period out of fear that the youth might perpetuate the cycle of abuse with his own children.
Many run away from home, Mones said. "The majority of several hundred thousand 'missing children' are in fact runaways fleeing from abuse. The majority of those found in runaway shelters have left home to escape abuse. Few have wanderlust; they're not Huck Finn on the Mississippi."
And a small but growing number kill their abuser, then argue that their act should be viewed as self-defense.
These youths tend to come from white, middle- and upper-middle-class backgrounds. (Those from lower economic strata, Mones theorizes, usually have public agencies involved in their life and are more likely to know where to go for help).
More than two-thirds of the killers are physically abused boys; more than three-fourths of the victims are fathers. Girls who commit parricide have usually been both sexually and physically abused. The average age at the time of murder is about 15 1/2 or 16, although Mones said he is aware of one 10-year-old
'Not Runaways'
"They have none of the classic characteristics of juvenile delinquents," Mones said. "They're not runaways, and their worst offense is probably shoplifting or truancy. Most of them are compliant, well-mannered teen-agers of whom people say, 'It would never be so-and-so.' "
GRAPHIC: Photo, Defendant Sociz,(johnny) Junatanov, 19, shown with his lawyer, Joel Isaacson. Al Seib / Los Angeles Times
____________________________________________________________________________________
Abused Son Acquitted In Plot to Kill Father
San Francisco Chronicle - Oct 11, 1986
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a 19-year-old youth accused of trying to murder his abusive father was found not guilty yesterday by sympathetic jurors who believed that he had acted in self-defense.
Sobbing quietly after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors - who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled. I am very surprised and I am very nervous," Junatanov said.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases.
If convicted, Junatanov would have faced up to 13 years in prison.
Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, an Oklahoma drifter hired to stab Junatanov's father, Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter and faces up to 6 1/2 years in prison.
According to testimony, Junatanov hired Gregg in 1985 to kill the elder Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. As Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering from stab wounds, Gregg's girlfriend injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped and humiliated him, as well as threatening to kill him.
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self defense, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Jury sides with abused son who plotted dad's death
Orlando Sentinel - Oct 11, 1986
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a man accused of trying to murder his abusive father was found not guilty Friday by sympathetic jurors convinced that he had acted in self- defense.
Sociz Junatanov, 19, hugged his mother and his attorney after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court. Members of the jury swarmed around him to wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled," he said. "I am very surprised and I am very nervous."
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child- abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varies widely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, an Oklahoma drifter hired to stab Junatanov's father, Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4.
According to testimony, Junatanov hired Gregg in 1985 to kill the elder Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. As Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering from stab wounds, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle. Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped and humiliated him, as well as threatening to kill him.
Other witnesses included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case. The mother and brother testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused them and assaulted numerous other people. The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
"I never tried to do any harm. . . . My only purpose was always to make them happy," he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Authorities said that they are considering filing child-abuse charges against him.
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self-preservation, and for his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
"The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case," said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. "We just could not get over that hurdle."
Son acquitted of trying to murder abusive father
By Lois Timnick and Paul Feldman - Times Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times - October 11, 1986
October 11, 1986, Saturday, Home Edition, SECTION: Part 1; Page 1; Column 1; Metro Desk
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a 19-year-old youth accused of trying to murder his father was found not guilty Friday by sympathetic jurors convinced that he had acted in self-defense against an abusive parent.
Sobbing quietly after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors -- who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled, I am very surprised and I am very nervous," Junatanov said softly, adding that he plans to move to Israel with his mother and brother.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varieswidely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
According to testimony, Junatanov and his brother, Asror, 22, hired Oklahoma drifter Richard Gregg in 1985 to kill their father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. Gregg attacked him in the restaurant with a knife but only wounded him.
As Albert Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
On Friday, Gregg, 24, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4.
Gregg's girlfriend, 18, a juvenile at the time of the attempted murder, pleaded guilty to the attack and is serving a five-year sentence in a youth authority facility.
Sociz Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened to kill him.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the family's New York City restaurant and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of neighbors. He said he was attached to a chain to prevent future escapes.
The youth testified that the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel and the father and two sons moved west to live above another family restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard.
Key Testimony
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
A dishwasher in the New York restaurant testified that the father used to take both boys to the basement and beat them. On one occasion, the dishwasher said, he heard screams and went to investigate. He found Sociz Junatanov tied with his hands behind his back to a pillar by rope and his shirt off. His chest and back were covered with bruises and welts, he testified.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
"I never tried to do any harm. . . . My only purpose was always to make them happy," he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read.
Panel Swayed
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self-preservation, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
Hurdle for Jurors
"The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case," said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. "We just could not get over that hurdle."
Defense attorney Joel Isaacson called the case "the most gratifying experience of my 14-year legal career" and hailed the verdict as that of "a very courageous jury, one that tempered justice with compassion."
Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Pfau attributed the acquittal to sympathy created by the emotion-filled testimony, although he said he had stressed both during jury selection and argument that sympathy should not enter into deliberations about the defendants' guilt or innocence. He said he believes both men should have been found guilty of attempted murder.
Believed Otherwise
But the jurors obviously believed otherwise, and their mood in Judge Miriam Vogel's courtroom Friday was one of elation.
Hugged by Juror
As Junatanov walked out of the courtroom a free man after 14 months in custody, he was hugged enthusiastically by juror Stephanie Ulkewicz, 68, a retired bank employee.
"I'm so happy for him. You should have heard what the poor little boy went through," she said. "He was driven to it. I'm emotional because I felt bad for the poor kid."
Juror Robert Bryant 28, a Southern California Gas Co. employee, said: "I think we all took into consideration that he came from a different cultural background. The father had so much control . . . (Johnny) was really stuck."
Bryant said the evidence of abuse was so "overwhelming" that the jury had no choice but to take its "very unusual" action.
"It's not something you can find precedent for, so we had to set our own," he said.
No More Tears
Junatanov had said during the trial that he remained dry-eyed through the testimony because "I've used up all my tears."
But Friday, he found himself weeping again.
"I never knew this could happen to me," he said. "This was a surprise you know."
As he left the courtroom, he said he does not plan to talk to his father again.
"I'm going to move to Israel and meet someone over there," he said. "I'm going to get married and make a family and get established."
GRAPHIC: Photo, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov, from left, his lawyer Joel Isaacson and his mother, Firuza, react to acquittal. Isaacson praised the verdict, saying that it "tempered justice with compassion." SARAH M. BROWN
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a man accused of trying to murder his abusive father was found not guilty Friday by sympathetic jurors convinced that he had acted in self- defense.
Sociz Junatanov, 19, hugged his mother and his attorney after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court. Members of the jury swarmed around him to wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled," he said. "I am very surprised and I am very nervous."
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child- abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varies widely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, an Oklahoma drifter hired to stab Junatanov's father, Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4.
According to testimony, Junatanov hired Gregg in 1985 to kill the elder Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. As Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering from stab wounds, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle. Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped and humiliated him, as well as threatening to kill him.
Other witnesses included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case. The mother and brother testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused them and assaulted numerous other people. The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
"I never tried to do any harm. . . . My only purpose was always to make them happy," he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Authorities said that they are considering filing child-abuse charges against him.
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self-preservation, and for his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
"The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case," said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. "We just could not get over that hurdle."
____________________________________________________________________________________
Son acquitted of trying to murder abusive father
By Lois Timnick and Paul Feldman - Times Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times - October 11, 1986
October 11, 1986, Saturday, Home Edition, SECTION: Part 1; Page 1; Column 1; Metro Desk
In a verdict believed to be a first in the United States, a 19-year-old youth accused of trying to murder his father was found not guilty Friday by sympathetic jurors convinced that he had acted in self-defense against an abusive parent.
Sobbing quietly after the verdict was read in Los Angeles Superior Court, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors -- who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him "a good life."
"I'm very thrilled, I am very surprised and I am very nervous," Junatanov said softly, adding that he plans to move to Israel with his mother and brother.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varieswidely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
According to testimony, Junatanov and his brother, Asror, 22, hired Oklahoma drifter Richard Gregg in 1985 to kill their father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. Gregg attacked him in the restaurant with a knife but only wounded him.
As Albert Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
On Friday, Gregg, 24, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4.
Gregg's girlfriend, 18, a juvenile at the time of the attempted murder, pleaded guilty to the attack and is serving a five-year sentence in a youth authority facility.
Sociz Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened to kill him.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the family's New York City restaurant and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of neighbors. He said he was attached to a chain to prevent future escapes.
The youth testified that the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel and the father and two sons moved west to live above another family restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard.
Key Testimony
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
A dishwasher in the New York restaurant testified that the father used to take both boys to the basement and beat them. On one occasion, the dishwasher said, he heard screams and went to investigate. He found Sociz Junatanov tied with his hands behind his back to a pillar by rope and his shirt off. His chest and back were covered with bruises and welts, he testified.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
"I never tried to do any harm. . . . My only purpose was always to make them happy," he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read.
Panel Swayed
The jury foreman, Rafael Perez, said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who testified that the youth acted in self-preservation, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
Hurdle for Jurors
"The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case," said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. "We just could not get over that hurdle."
Defense attorney Joel Isaacson called the case "the most gratifying experience of my 14-year legal career" and hailed the verdict as that of "a very courageous jury, one that tempered justice with compassion."
Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Pfau attributed the acquittal to sympathy created by the emotion-filled testimony, although he said he had stressed both during jury selection and argument that sympathy should not enter into deliberations about the defendants' guilt or innocence. He said he believes both men should have been found guilty of attempted murder.
Believed Otherwise
But the jurors obviously believed otherwise, and their mood in Judge Miriam Vogel's courtroom Friday was one of elation.
Hugged by Juror
As Junatanov walked out of the courtroom a free man after 14 months in custody, he was hugged enthusiastically by juror Stephanie Ulkewicz, 68, a retired bank employee.
"I'm so happy for him. You should have heard what the poor little boy went through," she said. "He was driven to it. I'm emotional because I felt bad for the poor kid."
Juror Robert Bryant 28, a Southern California Gas Co. employee, said: "I think we all took into consideration that he came from a different cultural background. The father had so much control . . . (Johnny) was really stuck."
Bryant said the evidence of abuse was so "overwhelming" that the jury had no choice but to take its "very unusual" action.
"It's not something you can find precedent for, so we had to set our own," he said.
No More Tears
Junatanov had said during the trial that he remained dry-eyed through the testimony because "I've used up all my tears."
But Friday, he found himself weeping again.
"I never knew this could happen to me," he said. "This was a surprise you know."
As he left the courtroom, he said he does not plan to talk to his father again.
"I'm going to move to Israel and meet someone over there," he said. "I'm going to get married and make a family and get established."
GRAPHIC: Photo, Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov, from left, his lawyer Joel Isaacson and his mother, Firuza, react to acquittal. Isaacson praised the verdict, saying that it "tempered justice with compassion." SARAH M. BROWN
____________________________________________________________________________________
Teen Acquitted in Murder-for-hire plot
Chicago Tribune - Ocober 12, 1986
A teenager accused of hiring a man to kill his father has been acquitted after a six-week trial in which witnesses detailed a litany of child abuse including beatings and sexual attacks. Sociz Junatanov, 19, was found innocent of attempted murder Friday, but the jury convicted Richard Gregg of attempted manslaughter. Junatanov and his brother Asror, 22, were accused of soliciting Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation. Sociz Junatanov testified that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened him. He said the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel. Gregg attacked the elder Junatanov with a knife, but the restaurateur was only wounded, according to testimony.
Tales of abuse help acquit son of murder try
The Associated Press/The Record October 12, 1986 - SUNDAY; ALL EDITIONS
Chicago Tribune - Ocober 12, 1986
A teenager accused of hiring a man to kill his father has been acquitted after a six-week trial in which witnesses detailed a litany of child abuse including beatings and sexual attacks. Sociz Junatanov, 19, was found innocent of attempted murder Friday, but the jury convicted Richard Gregg of attempted manslaughter. Junatanov and his brother Asror, 22, were accused of soliciting Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation. Sociz Junatanov testified that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened him. He said the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel. Gregg attacked the elder Junatanov with a knife, but the restaurateur was only wounded, according to testimony.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Associated Press/The Record October 12, 1986 - SUNDAY; ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A16
LOS ANGELES A teen-ager accused of hiring a man to kill his father has been acquitted after a six-week trial in which witnesses detailed a litany of child abuse, including beatings and sexual attacks.
Sociz Junatanov, 19, was found not guilty of attempted murder Friday. However, the jury convicted Richard Gregg of attempted manslaughter.
Junatanov and his brother, Asror, 22, were accused of soliciting Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation.
Sociz Junatanov testified that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated, and threatened him. He said the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel.
Gregg attacked Albert Junatanov with a knife, but the restaurateur was only wounded, according to testimony.
While the victim was in the hospital, Gregg's 18-year-old girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with battery acid, but Junatanov survived. She pleaded guilty and is serving a five-year term at a youth authority center.
Gregg, 24, faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison.
LOS ANGELES A teen-ager accused of hiring a man to kill his father has been acquitted after a six-week trial in which witnesses detailed a litany of child abuse, including beatings and sexual attacks.
Sociz Junatanov, 19, was found not guilty of attempted murder Friday. However, the jury convicted Richard Gregg of attempted manslaughter.
Junatanov and his brother, Asror, 22, were accused of soliciting Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation.
Sociz Junatanov testified that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated, and threatened him. He said the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel.
Gregg attacked Albert Junatanov with a knife, but the restaurateur was only wounded, according to testimony.
While the victim was in the hospital, Gregg's 18-year-old girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with battery acid, but Junatanov survived. She pleaded guilty and is serving a five-year term at a youth authority center.
Gregg, 24, faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Victim of child abuse cleared in attempt to kill his father
Houston Chronicle - October 12, 1986
Children citing self-defense in murder of parents
By Marcia Chambers, Special to the New York Times
The New York Times - October 12, 1986
Houston Chronicle - October 12, 1986
LOS ANGELES - A 19-year-old youth accused of trying to murder his abusive father was found not guilty by jurors convinced that he had acted in self-defense.
In Los Angeles Superior Court, a weeping Sociz ``Johnny'' Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors - who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him ``a good life.''
``I'm very thrilled. I am very surprised and I am very nervous,'' Junatanov said. He said that he plans to move to Israel with his mother and brother.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varies widely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
According to testimony, Junatanov and his brother, Asror, hired Oklahoma drifter Richard Gregg in 1985 to kill their father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. Gregg attacked him in the restaurant with a knife, but only wounded him.
As Albert Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
On Friday, Gregg, 24, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4. Gregg's girlfriend, 18, pleaded guilty to the attack and is serving a five-year sentence in a youth authority facility.
Sociz Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened to kill him.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the family's New York City restaurant, and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of the neighbors. He said that he was attached to a chain to prevent future escapes.
The youth testified that the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel, and the father and two sons moved West to live above another family restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard.
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
A dishwasher in the New York restaurant testified that the father used to take both boys to the basement and beat them. On one occasion he heard screams and went to investigate. He found Sociz Junatanov tied with his hands behind his back to a pillar by rope, and his shirt off. His chest and back were covered with bruises and welts, he testified.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
``I never tried to do any harm. My only purpose was always to make them happy,'' he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Authorities said that they are considering filing charges against him.
Jury foreman Rafael Perez said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who said that the youth acted in self-preservation, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
``The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case,'' said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. ``We just could not get over that hurdle.''
Defense attorney Joel Isaacson called the case ``the most gratifying experience of my 14-year legal career'' and hailed the verdict as that of ``a very courageous jury, one that tempered justice with compassion.''
Deputy District Attorney Paul Pfau attributed the acquittal to sympathy created by the emotion-filled testimony, although he said that he had stressed both during jury selection and argument that sympathy should not enter into deliberations about the defendants' guilt or innocence. He said that he believes both men should have been found guilty of attempted murder.
As Junatanov walked out of the courtroom a free man after 14 months in custody, he was hugged enthusiastically by juror Stephanie Ulkewicz, 68, a retired bank employee.
``I'm so happy for him. You should have heard what the poor little boy went through,'' she said. ``He was driven to it. I'm emotional because I felt bad for the poor kid.''
In Los Angeles Superior Court, a weeping Sociz ``Johnny'' Junatanov hugged his mother, his attorney and the jurors - who swarmed around to touch him, kiss him and wish him ``a good life.''
``I'm very thrilled. I am very surprised and I am very nervous,'' Junatanov said. He said that he plans to move to Israel with his mother and brother.
The verdict is believed to be the first acquittal of a child-abuse victim who has attempted to kill a parent, according to his lawyer and a review of similar cases across the country.
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varies widely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
According to testimony, Junatanov and his brother, Asror, hired Oklahoma drifter Richard Gregg in 1985 to kill their father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. Gregg attacked him in the restaurant with a knife, but only wounded him.
As Albert Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
On Friday, Gregg, 24, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 4. Gregg's girlfriend, 18, pleaded guilty to the attack and is serving a five-year sentence in a youth authority facility.
Sociz Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, testified during the six-week trial that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened to kill him.
Junatanov said his father forced him to leave school at age 14 to work in the family's New York City restaurant, and that his single attempt at running away ended with his father's catching him and stripping and beating him in front of the neighbors. He said that he was attached to a chain to prevent future escapes.
The youth testified that the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel, and the father and two sons moved West to live above another family restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard.
Other witnesses, who included the defendant's mother, Firuza, who came from Israel for the trial, and his brother, Asror, who is on probation after pleading guilty to similar charges in the same case, testified that Albert Junatanov had physically and emotionally abused his wife and sons and assaulted numerous other people.
A dishwasher in the New York restaurant testified that the father used to take both boys to the basement and beat them. On one occasion he heard screams and went to investigate. He found Sociz Junatanov tied with his hands behind his back to a pillar by rope, and his shirt off. His chest and back were covered with bruises and welts, he testified.
The elder Junatanov testified that he had never hurt his two sons.
``I never tried to do any harm. My only purpose was always to make them happy,'' he testified.
He was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Authorities said that they are considering filing charges against him.
Jury foreman Rafael Perez said the panel was swayed by testimony from psychiatrists, who said that the youth acted in self-preservation, and from his mother, who described Junatanov's brutality toward his family.
``The whole story about his beatings and the way he was treated permeates through the case,'' said Perez, 47, a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. employee. ``We just could not get over that hurdle.''
Defense attorney Joel Isaacson called the case ``the most gratifying experience of my 14-year legal career'' and hailed the verdict as that of ``a very courageous jury, one that tempered justice with compassion.''
Deputy District Attorney Paul Pfau attributed the acquittal to sympathy created by the emotion-filled testimony, although he said that he had stressed both during jury selection and argument that sympathy should not enter into deliberations about the defendants' guilt or innocence. He said that he believes both men should have been found guilty of attempted murder.
As Junatanov walked out of the courtroom a free man after 14 months in custody, he was hugged enthusiastically by juror Stephanie Ulkewicz, 68, a retired bank employee.
``I'm so happy for him. You should have heard what the poor little boy went through,'' she said. ``He was driven to it. I'm emotional because I felt bad for the poor kid.''
____________________________________________________________________________________
By Marcia Chambers, Special to the New York Times
The New York Times - October 12, 1986
Sunday, Late City Final Edition - SECTION: Section 1; Part 1, Page 38, Column 1; National Desk
When he took the stand two weeks ago, Sociz Junatanov freely admitted that he was desperate to kill his father. The 19-year-old defendant, known as Johnny, told the jury that from childhood his father had beaten him, kept him in handcuffs and chained him. He said that about three years ago his father raped him.
Mr. Junatanov hired a man to kill his father, Albert, a Hollywood restaurateur, according to court testimony. The father was stabbed, but he lived. Later, the friend of the man hired to kill the older Mr. Junatanov dressed as a nurse and injected the father with sulfuric acid while he was in a hospital bed, the jury was told. He survived.
His son then promised $5,000 to another man, who agreed to shoot Albert Junatanov. The man hired for the job turned out to be an undercover police officer. The son was arrested and charged with attempted murder 14 months ago.
On Friday, after listening to six weeks of testimony, a jury here acquitted the son. If convicted, the son could have been sentenced to 13 years in prison. Lawyers said it might be the first verdict of not guilty in which a child was found to have acted in self-defense against a brutal parent.
Increasingly, trial juries are being asked to decide these cases, and the self-defense strategy appears to be emerging as a viable defense. Concerned jurors, nearly all of whom are parents, are tending to convict on manslaughter, not murder, and have pressed the judge for leniency in sentencing.
'Begin to Live Your Life'
After the Junatanov verdict, the jurors hugged and kissed the defendant. One juror, Stephanie Ulkewicz, a retired bank employee, told the slightly built young man, who is a Russian immigrant: ''Forget everything. Begin to live your life from this day on.''
Mr. Junatanov replied, ''Yes, I'm going to try.''
Mr. Junatanov, who had said earlier that he remained dry-eyed as he testified because ''I've used up all my tears,'' wept at the verdict.
Studies involving parricide, the murder of a parent or close relative by a child, show that about 2 percent of all homicides in the nation, about 400 killings a year, are committed by children against their parents. The statistics have remained about the same for the past three years.
What has changed is that defense lawyers are now more likely to mount a vigorous and often highly publicized defense based on the idea that battered children, like battered wives, reach a point where their fear of being killed becomes unbearable and they kill in self-defense.
Besides the Junatanov case, a number of other cases of children killing parents have occurred around the country, in Colorado, in Oklahoma, in Brooklyn, on Long Island and in the Los Angeles area.
Last spring, in nearby Orange County, a jury asked a judge for leniency in the case of Joeri DeBeer, 18 years old, who they convicted of manslaughter in the killing of his legal guardian. The jury heard testimony that the young man's legal guardian, Philip Parsons, a convicted child molester, had been sexually abusing him four or five times a week for four years.
Jurors Visited Defendant
The jurors, without knowing others had the same idea, visited the young man in jail. All but one of the jurors wrote letters to the judge asking leniency for Mr. DeBeer. Several started a college trust fund for the young man and others gave him gifts. The judge sentenced him to three years probation.
In Van Nuys, a suburb of Los Angeles, Torran Lee Meier, 17, was charged with the murder of his mother. The jury heard testimony that he strangled his mother and pushed a burning automobile containing her body and his 8-year-old step-brother over a Malibu cliff last October. The brother survived and testified for the prosecution.
The defense presented witnesses who testified that the mother verbally abused her son, belittled Torran and was in general a terrible parent. Sexual abuse was not shown in the case.
The jurors returned a verdict of voluntary manslaughter. Many wrote letters to the judge, who is expected to sentence the young man soon. If he receives the maximum sentence of 11 years, he will be eligible for parole in six.
Cheerleader Is Charged
On Long Island, Cheryl Pierson, a cheerleader at Newfield High School in Seldon, will soon stand trial for murder, accused of hiring a student to kill her father. She said he had sexually abused her since she was 11 years old and that she believed he would soon attack her younger sister sexually.
Paul Mones, a lawyer in Los Angeles, who has written one of the few nationwide analyses of parricide cases, said in an interview of the self-defense strategy: ''There is a lot of education for the jury. We let the jury know that a murder or an attempted murder occurred and we're not contesting it.''
Joel Issacson, Mr. Junatanov's attorney, repeatedly told the jury that his client had committed the crime. At one point, Mr. Issacson put into evidence a photograph the father had ordered another son to take of the father and Johnny in bed together.
In his summation, Mr. Issacson asked the jurors to put themselves ''in Johnny's shoes.''
''We accepted that he did it,'' said Robert Bryant, a juror and an employee of the Southern California Gas Company. ''The only question was whether it was self-defense. We agreed after several hours that it was.''
Defense attorneys tend to spend a considerable amount of time in jury selection in these cases.
When he took the stand two weeks ago, Sociz Junatanov freely admitted that he was desperate to kill his father. The 19-year-old defendant, known as Johnny, told the jury that from childhood his father had beaten him, kept him in handcuffs and chained him. He said that about three years ago his father raped him.
Mr. Junatanov hired a man to kill his father, Albert, a Hollywood restaurateur, according to court testimony. The father was stabbed, but he lived. Later, the friend of the man hired to kill the older Mr. Junatanov dressed as a nurse and injected the father with sulfuric acid while he was in a hospital bed, the jury was told. He survived.
His son then promised $5,000 to another man, who agreed to shoot Albert Junatanov. The man hired for the job turned out to be an undercover police officer. The son was arrested and charged with attempted murder 14 months ago.
On Friday, after listening to six weeks of testimony, a jury here acquitted the son. If convicted, the son could have been sentenced to 13 years in prison. Lawyers said it might be the first verdict of not guilty in which a child was found to have acted in self-defense against a brutal parent.
Increasingly, trial juries are being asked to decide these cases, and the self-defense strategy appears to be emerging as a viable defense. Concerned jurors, nearly all of whom are parents, are tending to convict on manslaughter, not murder, and have pressed the judge for leniency in sentencing.
'Begin to Live Your Life'
After the Junatanov verdict, the jurors hugged and kissed the defendant. One juror, Stephanie Ulkewicz, a retired bank employee, told the slightly built young man, who is a Russian immigrant: ''Forget everything. Begin to live your life from this day on.''
Mr. Junatanov replied, ''Yes, I'm going to try.''
Mr. Junatanov, who had said earlier that he remained dry-eyed as he testified because ''I've used up all my tears,'' wept at the verdict.
Studies involving parricide, the murder of a parent or close relative by a child, show that about 2 percent of all homicides in the nation, about 400 killings a year, are committed by children against their parents. The statistics have remained about the same for the past three years.
What has changed is that defense lawyers are now more likely to mount a vigorous and often highly publicized defense based on the idea that battered children, like battered wives, reach a point where their fear of being killed becomes unbearable and they kill in self-defense.
Besides the Junatanov case, a number of other cases of children killing parents have occurred around the country, in Colorado, in Oklahoma, in Brooklyn, on Long Island and in the Los Angeles area.
Last spring, in nearby Orange County, a jury asked a judge for leniency in the case of Joeri DeBeer, 18 years old, who they convicted of manslaughter in the killing of his legal guardian. The jury heard testimony that the young man's legal guardian, Philip Parsons, a convicted child molester, had been sexually abusing him four or five times a week for four years.
Jurors Visited Defendant
The jurors, without knowing others had the same idea, visited the young man in jail. All but one of the jurors wrote letters to the judge asking leniency for Mr. DeBeer. Several started a college trust fund for the young man and others gave him gifts. The judge sentenced him to three years probation.
In Van Nuys, a suburb of Los Angeles, Torran Lee Meier, 17, was charged with the murder of his mother. The jury heard testimony that he strangled his mother and pushed a burning automobile containing her body and his 8-year-old step-brother over a Malibu cliff last October. The brother survived and testified for the prosecution.
The defense presented witnesses who testified that the mother verbally abused her son, belittled Torran and was in general a terrible parent. Sexual abuse was not shown in the case.
The jurors returned a verdict of voluntary manslaughter. Many wrote letters to the judge, who is expected to sentence the young man soon. If he receives the maximum sentence of 11 years, he will be eligible for parole in six.
Cheerleader Is Charged
On Long Island, Cheryl Pierson, a cheerleader at Newfield High School in Seldon, will soon stand trial for murder, accused of hiring a student to kill her father. She said he had sexually abused her since she was 11 years old and that she believed he would soon attack her younger sister sexually.
Paul Mones, a lawyer in Los Angeles, who has written one of the few nationwide analyses of parricide cases, said in an interview of the self-defense strategy: ''There is a lot of education for the jury. We let the jury know that a murder or an attempted murder occurred and we're not contesting it.''
Joel Issacson, Mr. Junatanov's attorney, repeatedly told the jury that his client had committed the crime. At one point, Mr. Issacson put into evidence a photograph the father had ordered another son to take of the father and Johnny in bed together.
In his summation, Mr. Issacson asked the jurors to put themselves ''in Johnny's shoes.''
''We accepted that he did it,'' said Robert Bryant, a juror and an employee of the Southern California Gas Company. ''The only question was whether it was self-defense. We agreed after several hours that it was.''
Defense attorneys tend to spend a considerable amount of time in jury selection in these cases.
'Test Them About Families'
''We test them about their deep-seated feelings about raising families,'' Mr. Mones said. ''We want to know their feelings about when a child justifiably has the right to take the life of his or her parent.''
Most of the children he has studied, Mr. Mones said, do not fit the typical profile of a criminal. He said they usually have no prior record, are clean-cut and respectable, have done well in school and seem genuinely unhappy that they felt forced to take the action they did against their parent.
He said that in every case he had studied, within six months after the crime, the child attempted suicide.
The major problem for the defense in these cases, said Mr. Mones, is that it must document systematic abuse over a long period of time.
But in Johnny Junatanov's case, his mother, Firuza Junatan, a classical dancer from Tadzikstan, a central Asian republic of the Soviet Union, returned from Israel, where she is now living, to tell the jury how shewas beaten, chained and humiliated by her husband for years. Johnny's grandmother also told of how she was abused by Albert Junatanov, her son in law. Other witnesses, who worked for the Junatanovs in their restaurants, testified that Mr. Junatanov beat both his sons.
Johnny Junatanov helped his mother escape to Israel three years ago after he heard his father trying to sell a man a night with his mother for $3,000. At the time, the family operated a restaurant, Firuz, on Manhattan's Upper East Side. ''I told my mother to run away,'' Johnny testified. ''I didn't want my mom to be a prostitute.''
The main prosecution witness was Johnny's father, who testified that he had never hurt his sons. He denied he raped Johnny.
The prosecutor, Paul Pfau, said the attempted murders were the work of revenge. Afterwards, Mr. Pfau attributed the acquittal to the emotional testimony and sympathy for the defendant.
After 14 months in jail, Johnny said he, his brother and his mother would go to Israel. He says he wants to ''get married and make a family.''
Most of the children he has studied, Mr. Mones said, do not fit the typical profile of a criminal. He said they usually have no prior record, are clean-cut and respectable, have done well in school and seem genuinely unhappy that they felt forced to take the action they did against their parent.
He said that in every case he had studied, within six months after the crime, the child attempted suicide.
The major problem for the defense in these cases, said Mr. Mones, is that it must document systematic abuse over a long period of time.
But in Johnny Junatanov's case, his mother, Firuza Junatan, a classical dancer from Tadzikstan, a central Asian republic of the Soviet Union, returned from Israel, where she is now living, to tell the jury how shewas beaten, chained and humiliated by her husband for years. Johnny's grandmother also told of how she was abused by Albert Junatanov, her son in law. Other witnesses, who worked for the Junatanovs in their restaurants, testified that Mr. Junatanov beat both his sons.
Johnny Junatanov helped his mother escape to Israel three years ago after he heard his father trying to sell a man a night with his mother for $3,000. At the time, the family operated a restaurant, Firuz, on Manhattan's Upper East Side. ''I told my mother to run away,'' Johnny testified. ''I didn't want my mom to be a prostitute.''
The main prosecution witness was Johnny's father, who testified that he had never hurt his sons. He denied he raped Johnny.
The prosecutor, Paul Pfau, said the attempted murders were the work of revenge. Afterwards, Mr. Pfau attributed the acquittal to the emotional testimony and sympathy for the defendant.
After 14 months in jail, Johnny said he, his brother and his mother would go to Israel. He says he wants to ''get married and make a family.''
____________________________________________________________________________________
Abused youth found not guilty in plan to kill father
Minneapolis Star and Tribune - 12 Oct 12, 1986
Most of the growing number of youths who kill or attempt to kill a parent are convicted, despite arguments of self-defense or temporary insanity, although the severity of the charges and sentences varies widely. If convicted, Junatanov would have faced a 13-year maximum sentence.
According to testimony, Junatanov hired [Richard Gregg] in 1985 to kill the elder Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. As Junatanov lay in the hospital recovering from stab wounds, Gregg's girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected him with a syringe of battery acid. But Junatanov survived, and his son was arrested after asking an undercover police officer to finish the job with a rifle.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Teen-ager is cleared of slaying attempt on `brutal' father
San Diego Union - Oct 12, 1986
According to court testimony, [Johnny Junatanov] and his brother, Asror, 22, solicited Richard Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation for his part in the murder plot.
Gregg attacked the elder Junatanov with a knife in the man's Hollywood restaurant, but the restaurateur was only wounded, according to testimony. Gregg was later convicted of attempted manslaughter.
Joel Issacson, Junatanov's attorney, repeatedly told the jury that his client had committed the crime. At one point, Issacson put into evidence a photograph the father had ordered another son to take of the father and Johnny in bed together.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Family's 'trials'
By D. Buckley
TELEGRAPH - October 13, 1986 Monday
FAMILY'S "TRIALS' LOS ANGELES (AAP): A teenager accused of having hired a man to kill his father has been acquitted after a six-week trial in which witnesses detailed a litany of child abuse including beatings and sexual attacks.
The son, Sociz Junatanov, 19, was found not guilty of attempted murder yesterday, but the jury convicted Richard Gregg of attempted manslaughter. Junatanov and his brother Asror, 22, were accused of having solicited Gregg to kill their father, Albert Junatanov. Asror pleaded guilty earlier this year and was placed on probation.
Sociz Junatanov testified that his father repeatedly beat, raped, humiliated and threatened him. He said the beatings intensified after his mother fled to Israel.
Gregg attacked the elder Junatanov with a knife, but only wounded him, according to testimony.
While he was hospitalized, Gregg's 18-year-old girlfriend, dressed as a nurse, injected the elder Junatanov with battery acid, but Junatanov survived.
She pleaded guilty and is serving a five-year term at a youth authority centre.
Gregg, 24, faces a maximum sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Facts on File World News Digest
Facts on File World News Digest - October 31, 1986
SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS, PAGE: Pg. 823 F1
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury Oct. 10 found Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov, 19, not guilty of trying to murder his abusive father. The verdict was believed to be the first acquittal in any U.S. court of a child-abuse victim who had attempted to kill a parent. During a six-week trial, Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, had testified that his father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur, had repeatedly beaten, raped and humiliated him. Other witnesses, including his mother, had corroborated his testimony. Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, a drifter hired by Sociz Junatanov to kill Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon. Albert Junatanov had survived stab wounds inflicted upon him by Gregg. While hospitalized for treatment of those wounds, he had also survived injection with a syringe of battery acid by Gregg's girl friend, disguised as a nurse.
Facts on File World News Digest - October 31, 1986
SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS, PAGE: Pg. 823 F1
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury Oct. 10 found Sociz (Johnny) Junatanov, 19, not guilty of trying to murder his abusive father. The verdict was believed to be the first acquittal in any U.S. court of a child-abuse victim who had attempted to kill a parent. During a six-week trial, Junatanov, a Russian-Jewish immigrant, had testified that his father, Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur, had repeatedly beaten, raped and humiliated him. Other witnesses, including his mother, had corroborated his testimony. Co-defendant Richard Gregg, 24, a drifter hired by Sociz Junatanov to kill Albert, was convicted of one count of attempted manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon. Albert Junatanov had survived stab wounds inflicted upon him by Gregg. While hospitalized for treatment of those wounds, he had also survived injection with a syringe of battery acid by Gregg's girl friend, disguised as a nurse.
___________________________________________________________________________________
The Region
Los Angeles Times - February 22, 1987
A 25-year-old Tulsa, Okla., man who was hired by a teen-age Soviet immigrant to kill the young man's father was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 6 1/2 years in prison. Richard Gregg was convicted in October of attempted voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon in connection with the 1985 knife attack on Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. At the same time, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury acquitted the son, Sociz Junatanov, 19, saying he was an abused child who had acted in self-defense.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Los Angeles Times - February 22, 1987
SECTION: Part 1; Page 2; Column 5; Metro Desk
A 25-year-old Tulsa, Okla., man who was hired by a teen-age Soviet immigrant to kill the young man's father was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 6 1/2 years in prison. Richard Gregg was convicted in October of attempted voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon in connection with the 1985 knife attack on Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. At the same time, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury acquitted the son, Sociz Junatanov, 19, saying he was an abused child who had acted in self- defense.
A 25-year-old Tulsa, Okla., man who was hired by a teen-age Soviet immigrant to kill the young man's father was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 6 1/2 years in prison. Richard Gregg was convicted in October of attempted voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon in connection with the 1985 knife attack on Albert Junatanov, a Hollywood restaurateur. At the same time, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury acquitted the son, Sociz Junatanov, 19, saying he was an abused child who had acted in self- defense.
____________________________________________________________________________________
People v. Gragg, 216 Cal. App. 3d 32 (Hired killer's appeal)
Pages: 10
216 Cal. App. 3d 32; 264 Cal. Rptr. 765; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD GRAGG, Defendant and Appellant
No. B027169
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five
216 Cal. App. 3d 32; 264 Cal. Rptr. 765; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217
November 29, 1989
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
Appellant's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 1990.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A771909, Miriam A. Vogel, Judge.
COUNSEL: Alisa M. Weisman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William T. Harter and Susan D. Martynec, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JUDGES: Opinion by Sutton, J., * with Lucas, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurring. * Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
OPINION BY: SUTTON
OPINION: Defendant Richard Gragg (Gragg) was charged with attempted murder in two counts of a three-count information, originally with three other codefendants who were Sociz John Junatanov (Johnny); Georgeanna Vieweg (Vieweg); and Asror Junatanov (Oscar). Gragg was convicted in count I (the restaurant incident) of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Gragg was acquitted in count II (the hospital incident). He was not charged as a defendant in count III.
The claim of error Gragg makes concerns the asserted refusal of the trial court to give an instruction to the jury to the effect the crime of assault with a deadly weapon was a lesser related offense and the additional claim is made that the court erred in imposing the upper term sentence on Gragg in violation of certain of the sentencing rules embodied in the California Rules of Court, rules 401 through 453.
Judgment is affirmed.
The facts of this case are bizarre. The literary talents of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and James M. Cain, in collaboration, would have been hard put to devise any more sordid or outlandish plot than the record here reveals. This case is a raw slice-of-life that exposes the seamier underside of the Hollywood Boulevard street-people subculture.
The victim is Albert Junatanov (Junatanov), the father of Johnny and Oscar. The record exposes Junatanov as an extremely unsavory person who, by the testimony of supposedly unbiased witnesses, at various times was involved in prostitution, drug trafficking, drug use, and gambling. Junatanov used several aliases, was said to be paranoid, and was subject to attacking people violently upon little or no provocation.
Junatanov subjected his sons Johnny and Oscar, his wife Firuz Junatanov, and his mother-in-law Maria Pinhasova to a course of physical and sexual abuse for some 20 years before the attempt that was made upon his life. He also subjected his family to economic exploitation, death threats, and psychological humiliation. The trial court was prompted to remark in passing sentence on Gragg that Junatanov "was probably one of the most despicable people" the court had ever seen.
In early 1985, because he perceived "there were too many enemies around," Junatanov rented a truck, closed his restaurant on the east coast, moved his family and restaurant equipment west, and rented a place on Hollywood Boulevard to open a restaurant called "The London-New York Shawarana Restaurant." Junatanov leased the building where the restaurant was located in the names of Johnny and Oscar because Junatanov felt when he got into trouble (as he presumably anticipated he would) he did not want people to think he had any assets, should they sue him.
After the restaurant opened, one Danny Solorzano (Solorzano), a pimp for two young female prostitutes, heard that Junatanov "worked for the Mafia" and sought out Junatanov's "protection." Junatanov gave Solorzano room and board for doing odd jobs around the restaurant. The Junatanov family resided in living quarters above the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant.
Solorzano testified at the trial under grant of derivative use immunity. Solorzano once observed Junatanov administer a beating to Oscar for Oscar's failure to add salt to a batch of bread Oscar was baking for the restaurant. The day following this incident, Solorzano discussed with Johnny and Oscar a plan to kill Junatanov. Johnny offered Solorzano $ 5,000 to kill his father. Solorzano declined to do so, personally, but stated he could find someone else to do it. At this point, a street person named "Mousey" steered Solorzano to the defendant Gragg and Solorzano discussed with Gragg the proposed slaying of Junatanov for a price. Gragg was then age 25, and Vieweg, who had accompanied him to Hollywood from Oklahoma, was age 17. Gragg and Vieweg had been variously living in motel rooms or sleeping in Gragg's car. Gragg's father was a sergeant on the Tulsa,
Oklahoma police force and at this point in his life Gragg's only prior record consisted of minor traffic offenses incurred in Oklahoma.
Gragg agreed to kill Janatanov for payment of $ 3,000, due following Junatanov's assassination. Some divergency in the evidence occurred concerning the next events. One version had it that Gragg, knife in hand, was lying in wait in the alley behind the restaurant one night at closing time, waiting for Junatanov to emerge. However, Junatanov, upon exiting the restaurant, saw Gragg "with something in his hand" and quickly reentered the restaurant, thus foiling the attempt on his life that could have been made at that time.
On July 20, 1985, about 11:30 a.m. Gragg went to the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant, purchased a soft drink, got a dollar changed, and went to the rear of the restaurant where there was an arcade of video games and pinball machines. Gragg either lost or pretended to lose a quarter in one of the machines and asked Johnny how he could get his quarter back. At this point, Johnny had not previously met Gragg.
Junatanov was summoned to the rear of the restaurant and was confronted by Gragg about the loss of the quarter. Junatanov grabbed Gragg by the hair and slammed his head against the wall. Gragg stabbed Junatanov once in the abdomen and fled. At the trial, Gragg did not testify but a taped statement given by Gragg after his arrest was played on a tape recorder. It was intimated Gragg was acting in self-defense. Junatanov testified he had recognized Gragg from the previous encounter in the alley and that Junatanov perceived Gragg to be an assailant. Whatever the circumstance, Junatanov's liver was lacerated by the stab wound and he was taken to the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital suffering internal bleeding. He had a convulsion while awaiting treatment in the emergency room at the hospital. Emergency surgery was performed at the hospital to repair Junatanov's liver.
Gragg was refused payment by Johnny because Junatanov had not died. Later, Johnny reported to Solorzano the hospital had advised Johnny that Junatanov would be confined in the hospital for the next two or three days. Johnny suggested Gragg should be shot for botching the job. It was decided Gragg would be given "another chance" after Gragg reaffirmed he still wanted to do the job.
Two days following the emergency surgery, Junatanov awakened in his hospital bed to see Gragg standing beside him. Junatanov shouted and Gragg ran from the room. Junatanov stated he had seen something in Gragg's hand -- Gragg later told Solorzano he had carried a knife into the hospital room but had run from the room when Junatanov started shouting.
Following this, Johnny arranged for Junatanov to be moved to another room in the hospital. Johnny slept overnight in the new room with Junatanov after assuring Junatanov "we will save you -- no one will be able to kill you."
Vieweg had arrived in Hollywood with Gragg sometime around July 13, 1985, and since their arrival had stayed with him at the Hollywood-La Brea Hotel. She hailed Gragg in his car from the street one afternoon, noticing Gragg had gotten a haircut and new clothes. Gragg had told her he had gotten a job. She returned with Gragg to the motel room where she met Johnny and watched TV while Johnny and Gragg had a discussion. Vieweg accompanied Gragg to the hospital just before noon on July 21st. Gragg advised her at the time he was going to finish what he had started -- that he had "to finish off" Johnny's father. Vieweg observed Gragg conceal a knife with about an 8-inch blade under his jacket -- a knife Vieweg testified she knew Gragg had brought with him on their trip from Oklahoma. After about a 45-minute stay in Gragg's car at the hospital, Vieweg stated Gragg returned and reported he was unable to carry through because there were too many people around Junatanov's room.
The next day Johnny returned to the motel room. Gragg, Solorzano, Vieweg and one Darryl Plant were present. Johnny proposed to Vieweg that he wanted to kill his father by injecting him with sulfuric acid based battery fluid and wanted to know whether she would do it. Vieweg was destitute and wanted money to return to Oklahoma, so she agreed. Vieweg then went with Johnny, Solorzano, Gragg and Plant to a uniform store across the street from the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, where Johnny made the credit card purchase of a nurse's uniform, white shoes and stockings, as well as a nurse's nameplate inscribed with the name "Cathy."
All returned to the motel where Vieweg changed into the uniform just purchased. Solorzano handed Vieweg two hypodermic syringes someone had filled with battery acid. Johnny announced he was going to return to the restaurant and Gragg assured Johnny they would report back to him there. Gragg and Plant took Vieweg back to the hospital.
Gragg stayed in the car while Vieweg and Plant entered the hospital. Vieweg was fearful she would be stopped but found the room where Junatanov was by following directions Johnny had given her. Junatanov was in the room with a bodyguard. Vieweg recognized Junatanov from a previous time she had seen him in the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant, when she had gone there with Gragg.
Johnny had previously advised Vieweg that Junatanov had complained of headaches and pain in the area of his stab wound. Vieweg asked Junatanov how his headaches and the pain in his side were, and that she had two injections for him -- one for each complaint.
Vieweg attempted to inject one syringe into a vein in Junatanov's arm, but he insisted, instead, that she inject him near the top of his arm. She complied. Junatanov immediately complained his arm burned and Vieweg said she would go find the doctor and return. Instead, with considerable fear of apprehension, she left the hospital.
Plant had positioned himself outside the door to Junatanov's room. When Vieweg left the room, Plant asked if she "had done it." When she said she had, he replied "good" and hugged her. Vieweg discarded the syringe she had used on Junatanov in the parking lot of the hospital where Gragg was waiting in the car. Vieweg insisted they leave but Gragg remained incredulous -- he repeated several times "Did you do it?" or "I can't believe you did it." and "Are you telling me the truth?"
Gragg and Vieweg saw Johnny two or three days later after having moved to a different motel. Johnny brought them some food from the restaurant, but reported that Junatanov had survived and his condition was improving. Gragg upbraided Vieweg for not having injected the battery acid into a vein in Junatanov's arm. Johnny was also angry and Vieweg became frightened. Gragg insisted on payment of at least half the promised $ 3,000 from Johnny but was refused any payment at all because the assassination had failed.
Thereafter, Vieweg left Hollywood without telling Gragg and returned to Oklahoma. She was eventually extradited and was originally designated a defendant in the case but settled her case through the plea-bargaining process. She was sentenced to a term of five years California Youth Authority confinement and was also required to give testimony at the trial.
The whole plot against Junatanov unravelled when Solorzano, in a probable attempt to ameliorate a pending grand theft auto charge, introduced Johnny to a Los Angeles Police Department undercover officer, one Sal Flamenco, in a hastily revived plot to pay Flamenco $ 5,000 if he would kill Junatanov with either a .22 caliber gun or shotgun which Johnny was prepared to provide. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Junatanov following these episodes claims to have reformed, but he recanted. In a taped interview played before the jury a promise was made never to beat his wife or children again in a confession made to a Lubivatcher rabbi. The rabbi promised death to Junatanov within two years if this pledge was broken. At the trial, Junatanov insisted the voice on the tape was not his, but that of his son, Oscar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The trial commenced August 26, 1986, and concluded October 10, 1986. As stated, Solorzano had been granted derivative use immunity to be able to testify at the trial, and Vieweg testified under the circumstances above noted. Gragg and Johnny were tried together. Oscar had previously entered a guilty plea and eventually was placed on probation.
Thus, Gragg and Johnny were the defendants tried. Count I alleged the charge of attempted murder against Gragg and Johnny in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). This was the restaurant incident. Count II named Gragg and Johnny as defendants on the same charges. This was "the hospital incident." Count III alleged against Johnny only the charge of solicitation for murder in violation of Penal Code section 653f.
Johnny was acquitted outright on all three counts. Gragg was acquitted on count II, the hospital incident, but was found guilty in count I of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 192, subdivision (a).
A psychiatric workup pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03 was ordered on Gragg which prolonged his probation and sentencing hearing until February 20, 1987. Because his conviction was for attempted voluntary manslaughter, and Penal Code section 664 ordinarily "halves" the range of sentence options when a defendant is convicted of an attempted crime, the range of sentences for voluntary manslaughter of three, six, or eleven years ( Pen. Code, § 193, subd. (a)) was reduced to eighteen months, three or five and a half years.
Upper term and an additional year's enhancement for the use of a knife by Gragg in stabbing Junatanov was the sentence imposed. The total term was six and a half years. Under Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) a maximum restitution fine of $ 10,000 was ordered. Gragg received 800 days presentence incarceration credit, which included 267 days for "good time/work time."
The reporter's transcript runs to some 2,268 pages. However, the error urged in this appeal centers on sentencing issues so that attention is focused principally on the last 30 pages of the transcript -- the probation and sentencing hearing of February 20, 1987. The only other issue raised in this appeal concerns a claim of error on the trial court's part for refusal to instruct the jury that assault with a deadly weapon (ADW) was a "lesser related" offense.
The "lesser related" issue is addressed first. Gragg's counsel on appeal, by letter brief, cites the recent Supreme Court case of People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1028 [254 Cal.Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1], for the proposition this case is subject to the "lesser related offense" rule established in 1974 by People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 721 [112 Cal.Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913] (disapproved on unrelated points in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 [160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]).
This position is taken with all the clarity hindsight provides, however. It must be remembered the charges in the restaurant and the hospital incidents were both alleged as attempted murder in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). Neither defense counsel nor anyone else could anticipate Gragg's acquittal in the hospital incident or his conviction in the restaurant incident of attempted voluntary manslaughter as a bona fide but strained lesser included offense to the charge of attempted murder.
When defense counsel requested an instruction that ADW was a lesser included offense to a charge of attempted murder the trial court promptly and correctly pointed out the case of In re David S. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 156, 159 [195 Cal.Rptr. 754], which held and reiterated that People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92 [192 Cal.Rptr. 748, 665 P.2d 520] established ADW is not a lesser included offense to the crime of attempted murder.
Nothing else appears in the record where defense counsel thereafter ever requested that an instruction be given in this case that ADW was a lesser related offense. (It should be noted in deference to the defendant that the instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter was given by the trial court, in the first place, over the prosecutor's objection.)
The points made by Gragg's counsel about People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510 [199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303, 50 A.L.R.4th 1055], are certainly true as abstract legal principles, but Geiger specifically states (35 Cal.3d at p. 530) the trial court is never under any duty or obligation, sua sponte or otherwise, ". . . to instruct on related offenses in the absence of a request by the defendant for such instructions."
As is so often the case, appellate counsel can indulge the luxury of contemplation and reflective analysis to suggest on appeal all the "ought to haves" trial counsel should have considered, but did not, while battling in the trenches at the trial. Since Geiger mandates an instruction on any lesser (related or included) offense must be requested, no error can be attributed to the trial court for correct adherence to the rule in "In re David S.," supra, 148 Cal.App.3d 156, nor can any fault be ascribed to the trial court for failure to give an instruction ADW was a lesser related offense since no such specific request for the instruction is discernible from the record.
The Supreme Court's salutary reason for this rule is echoed here – the defendant has an absolute right to full knowledge of the charges against him, hence it is necessary for the defendant to request instructions on any uncharged crime(s) and, for the same reason, it would be error for a court to instruct on lesser offenses sua sponte, since to do so would deprive a defendant of the constitutionally necessary foreknowledge of just what crime(s) he is charged with.
There is no error in this case for failure to instruct on an unrequested lesser related offense theory.
Next, Gragg urges sentencing error occurred. While the points raised by Gragg's counsel are more than mere quibbles, they are not much more than that. The trial court upon imposition of sentence made some prefatory remarks. It is agreed here that the trial court correctly observed the only basis the jury had for finding Gragg guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter was through adoption of the People v. Flannel argument that Gragg had an honest but unreasonable belief it was necessary to defend himself in the restaurant incident from imminent peril posed by Junatanov. (Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668.) Even if the assault on Junatanov at the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant had been pre-planned by Gragg, there was nevertheless an aura of spontaneity to it wholly absent from the insidiously plotted and executed hospital incident, from which Gragg was acquitted despite somber indications from the record Gragg was a leading principal in that episode.
The trial court stated openly, candidly, and correctly that no heed would be paid to the charge on which Gragg was acquitted in imposing sentence. While recognizing Gragg had no prior record, the court nevertheless found him unsuitable for probation based on the court's personal assimilation of all the evidence from the trial as well as from the Penal Code section 1203.03 report which the court had received and considered, and the probation and sentencing report. The court mused aloud Gragg had spent 522 days in actual custody and had earned conduct credits of 267 days so that he had a total presentence credit of 800 days coming to him. The court rejected aloud the notion a low term sentence of 30 months was sufficient (i.e. half of the low term of 3 years or 18 months plus 1 year's enhancement for knife use).
It was the court's view voiced before hearing counsel's remarks that it was felt midterm and the knife use enhancement was an appropriate sentence. n2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 The court stated: ". . . I do think the mitigating factors of no prior record and Mr. Gragg's [knife] use combined with all the other things I have just said all in appropriate. [Sic.] The appropriate sentence in this case." The transcription of the record appears muddled here. "In appropriate" is obviously not "inappropriate" and the words which follow and are set forth as a sentence in the transcript "the appropriate sentence in this case." is a fragmentary sentence with neither verb nor object. In light of these obvious clerical errors it is idle to speculate precisely what was said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In response to the court's remarks the prosecutor cited the court to People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1018-1019 [230 Cal.Rptr. 237], in support of an argument for imposition of the upper term. Moore was urged by the prosecutor to stand for the proposition that where some felony and misdemeanor counts are tried in one action, and convictions are obtained only on the misdemeanor charges it is permissible for the sentencing judge to consider the evidence in the felony counts for purposes of imposing sentences on the misdemeanor convictions. Actually, the precise issue appealed in Moore was that the probation sentencing report on Moore referred to facts brought out in trial of the felony counts which was argued to be improper to use in the imposition of misdemeanor sentences. The Moore court rejected this argument by pointing out cases like People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 754 [150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220, 3 A.L.R.4th 1171], and People v. Zikorus (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 324, 333 [197 Cal.Rptr. 509], which allow a trial court to impose sentence even with "responsible unsworn or out-of-court information relative to the crime and to the convicted person's life and characteristics." That information may include raw arrest data and information about arrests for which no convictions were obtained, so long as the information is accurate and reliable, and the judge imposing sentence is not misled into believing a mere arrest to be an actual conviction. Moore also cites People v. Rhines (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 498, 509 [182 Cal. Rptr. 478], where it was noted in passing before addressing the point in issue here, that the trial judge in Rhines heard all the evidence on the count in which the defendant was acquitted from witnesses under oath. The point made by Rhines equally applicable here is that: "Whatever facts the judge here considered were received . . . in a manner that could not have misled him for he knew that defendant was acquitted in II." (Rhines, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 509.) [And] "no prejudice . . . could have occurred as the result of the court's knowledge of the evidence on [the acquitted' count]." (Id. at p. 510.)
Before grappling with the points raised here urging sentencing error it should first be remembered that while a trial judge's function is to preside at trial, rule on evidentiary objections and give the law to the jury, and the jury's function is to winnow findings of fact from all the evidence presented, apply the given law to the facts determined, and return a verdict, both judge and jury identically here, perceived and assimilated the evidence which was presented. It is fatuous to suggest that evidence "which rings a jury's bell" does not also "ring the judge's bell" at the same time. CALJIC instruction No. 1.02, or a similar permutation of that instruction, has warned juries from time immemorial that stricken evidence must not be considered by them and that juries must treat stricken evidence as though they had never heard it. It can be speculated how successful juries are in adherence to this instruction but it is taken as an article of faith juries can effectively accomplish this task. This is expected and demanded of the laity from which jury panels are drawn -- they are persons unschooled in the law. If the popular supposition is that lay persons as jurors have the capacity to ignore stricken evidence as CALJIC No. 1.02 requires, then it is almost an insult to suggest that a superior court judge, who must have a requisite 10 years' experience as a lawyer before becoming eligible to be a judge, cannot, in the imposition of sentence, distinguish between what a defendant was acquitted of or convicted of.
In this case the trial court clearly and expressly stated the hospital incident count of which Gragg was acquitted would play no part whatsoever in the sentencing choices. From the precedents previously noted, however, it must be further observed any jury must be convinced by the prosecution's evidence that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (CALJIC No. 2.90) and acquittal of a crime means nothing more or less than the fact the evidence presented by the prosecution on a particular charge did notmeet that burden. It does not mean, most emphatically, that the evidence presented on any charge which results in an acquittal mysteriously vanishes from the scene or is consigned automatically to a purgatory of sorts from which no further utility may be drawn. Evidence equates with information. As the cited Arbuckle, Zikorus, and Rhines cases provide, any reliable information may be utilized by a trial judge in imposing a sentence, whether such information be from within or without the record of the case of the defendant to be sentenced.
The fact prosecution evidence does not prove the guilt of the defendant on a charge beyond a reasonable doubt does not rob that evidence of its informative value, nor does it make any information gleaned from such evidence unreliable. What is not prohibited by law is a judge's use of reliable information from any source from which to draw sentencing conclusions. What is prohibited is the unwarranted practice of imposing extra punishment on a defendant convicted of one charge based on a conclusion by the judge the jury erred in acquitting the defendant on any companion charges. (People v. Takencareof (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 492 [174 Cal.Rptr. 112].)
After the prosecutor properly cited to the trial court the Moore case, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, and after an opportunity to read and consider Moore, the trial court correctly concluded the totality of information received from all the evidence in the case was available to her to consider for sentencing purposes in the imposition of Gragg's sentence.
In reviewing the transcript of the sentencing hearing the impression emerges that superior advocacy by the prosecutor carried the day at the sentencing. This is in no manner disparaging or belittling of the remarkable trial results obtained by defense counsel, however. In the final analysis of the case it would seem Junatanov was portrayed to be so brutish, loathsome and despicable that the abundant evidence of guilt of the charged defendants was somehow ameliorated to the extent of Johnny's total acquittal on all three counts, and conviction of Graggon count I only of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. This was a prodigious feat of lawyering on the part of defense counsel.
To address the specific issues which are claimed to be sentencing error it should be pointed out the probation department's report on Gragg recommended the high base term and "knife enhanced" sentence of six and a half years, the sentence which was actually imposed. The report cited the aggravating factors were (1) great violence and threat of great bodily harm disclosing a high degree of cruelty and viciousness; (2) the victim was particularly vulnerable; (3) the planning, sophistication or professionalism with which the crime was carried out indicates premeditation. One mitigating factor was cited -- the defendant had no extensive prior arrest history.
As legally required, the trial court stated the reasons relied upon for imposition of the high term. In quoting the trial court's remarks numerical reference to the sentencing rules in the California Rules of Court are parenthetically inserted. The trial court stated: "To summarize briefly, the crime involved is violent. (414(c)(1); 421(a)(1).) It involved the use of deadly weapon. (414(c)(3).) You had a particularly vulnerable victim. (414(c)(2).) There was careful planning involved, (414(c)(5)) and while the crime was not sophisticated or professional in any sense of the word, it was carefully planned, and there was substantial premeditation. (414(c)(1).) For all of those reasons plus the comments made earlier the high term is justified."
The court previously noted the only mitigating factor was Gragg's lack of a prior criminal record and that "the circumstances in aggravation so far outweigh the single circumstance in mitigation as to justify high term."
Defendant's argument the hospital incident was used to invoke a high term sentence, although Gragg had been acquitted on that count, is obviated by the unstated but apparent avoidance by the trial court of citing rule 421(a)(5) for the inducement of Vieweg into participation in the hospital incident; and 421(a)(5) using or involving Vieweg as a minor in the commission of the hospital affray on Junatanov.
Junatanov's particular vulnerability in the restaurant incident might be questioned, just as it cannot be questioned seriously in the hospital incident, but even by "eliminating that reason" from the thinking of this court, there still remains a far heavier tilt of aggravating circumstances over mitigating circumstances to be considered. There is therefore substantial evidence in the record before this court to support each sentencing rule relied on by the trial court, with the exception of the "particular vulnerability" of Junatanov in the restaurant incident. "The power of a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion of the jury or the findings of the trial court, begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that will support such conclusions or findings." (5 Cal.Jur.3d, Appellate Review, § 536, p. 232.)
The simple process of stating a plurality of citable sentencing rules either in aggravation or mitigation is a disfavored way of determining a sentence. The requirement imposed on a trial court is to give voice through a stated weighing process on the record the reasons why chosen circumstances mitigate or aggravate without necessary regard to the fact in a given case there may be a greater number of one kind of such factors than the other. The trial court undertook just such a process in reaching the conclusions made in this case.
Gragg complained the maximum fine of $ 10,000 imposed under Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) is excessive. People v. Romero (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1148, 1156 [213 Cal.Rptr. 774], seems to say the trial court need not specify reasons for imposing any amount of fine selected between the $ 100/10,000 parameters provided in section 13967, subdivision (a). Only when the minimum fine of $ 100 is waived does it become necessary to state reasons for the waiver.
Notwithstanding, the trial court was mandatorily required by the statute itself to consider "any relevant factor" including but not limited to the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant, . . . and the extent to which others have suffered loss. Psychological as well as pecuniary loss may be considered. People v. Wyman (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 810, 816 [212 Cal.Rptr. 668], provides "[i]n the absence of a clear showing of abuse, the trial court's sentencing discretion will not be disturbed on appeal. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68 [120 Cal.Rptr. 577, 534 P.2d 65] . . . .)" It was reported in the probation and sentencing report Gragg claimed to have been the beneficiary of a trust fund in Oklahoma, and that he was not impecunious and the trial court so noted in imposing the $10,000 fine. Displeasure voiced by Gragg over the $ 10,000 fine does not equate with abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing such fine.
Further direct attention need not be paid to Gragg's claim of sentencing error in light of the conclusion reached that substantial evidence exists in the record to affirm the trial court's conclusion the circumstances in aggravation outweigh those in mitigation, thus justifying imposition of the sentence Gragg received.
Pages: 10
216 Cal. App. 3d 32; 264 Cal. Rptr. 765; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD GRAGG, Defendant and Appellant
No. B027169
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five
216 Cal. App. 3d 32; 264 Cal. Rptr. 765; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217
November 29, 1989
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
Appellant's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 1990.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A771909, Miriam A. Vogel, Judge.
COUNSEL: Alisa M. Weisman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William T. Harter and Susan D. Martynec, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JUDGES: Opinion by Sutton, J., * with Lucas, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurring. * Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
OPINION BY: SUTTON
OPINION: Defendant Richard Gragg (Gragg) was charged with attempted murder in two counts of a three-count information, originally with three other codefendants who were Sociz John Junatanov (Johnny); Georgeanna Vieweg (Vieweg); and Asror Junatanov (Oscar). Gragg was convicted in count I (the restaurant incident) of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Gragg was acquitted in count II (the hospital incident). He was not charged as a defendant in count III.
The claim of error Gragg makes concerns the asserted refusal of the trial court to give an instruction to the jury to the effect the crime of assault with a deadly weapon was a lesser related offense and the additional claim is made that the court erred in imposing the upper term sentence on Gragg in violation of certain of the sentencing rules embodied in the California Rules of Court, rules 401 through 453.
Judgment is affirmed.
The facts of this case are bizarre. The literary talents of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and James M. Cain, in collaboration, would have been hard put to devise any more sordid or outlandish plot than the record here reveals. This case is a raw slice-of-life that exposes the seamier underside of the Hollywood Boulevard street-people subculture.
The victim is Albert Junatanov (Junatanov), the father of Johnny and Oscar. The record exposes Junatanov as an extremely unsavory person who, by the testimony of supposedly unbiased witnesses, at various times was involved in prostitution, drug trafficking, drug use, and gambling. Junatanov used several aliases, was said to be paranoid, and was subject to attacking people violently upon little or no provocation.
Junatanov subjected his sons Johnny and Oscar, his wife Firuz Junatanov, and his mother-in-law Maria Pinhasova to a course of physical and sexual abuse for some 20 years before the attempt that was made upon his life. He also subjected his family to economic exploitation, death threats, and psychological humiliation. The trial court was prompted to remark in passing sentence on Gragg that Junatanov "was probably one of the most despicable people" the court had ever seen.
In early 1985, because he perceived "there were too many enemies around," Junatanov rented a truck, closed his restaurant on the east coast, moved his family and restaurant equipment west, and rented a place on Hollywood Boulevard to open a restaurant called "The London-New York Shawarana Restaurant." Junatanov leased the building where the restaurant was located in the names of Johnny and Oscar because Junatanov felt when he got into trouble (as he presumably anticipated he would) he did not want people to think he had any assets, should they sue him.
After the restaurant opened, one Danny Solorzano (Solorzano), a pimp for two young female prostitutes, heard that Junatanov "worked for the Mafia" and sought out Junatanov's "protection." Junatanov gave Solorzano room and board for doing odd jobs around the restaurant. The Junatanov family resided in living quarters above the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant.
Solorzano testified at the trial under grant of derivative use immunity. Solorzano once observed Junatanov administer a beating to Oscar for Oscar's failure to add salt to a batch of bread Oscar was baking for the restaurant. The day following this incident, Solorzano discussed with Johnny and Oscar a plan to kill Junatanov. Johnny offered Solorzano $ 5,000 to kill his father. Solorzano declined to do so, personally, but stated he could find someone else to do it. At this point, a street person named "Mousey" steered Solorzano to the defendant Gragg and Solorzano discussed with Gragg the proposed slaying of Junatanov for a price. Gragg was then age 25, and Vieweg, who had accompanied him to Hollywood from Oklahoma, was age 17. Gragg and Vieweg had been variously living in motel rooms or sleeping in Gragg's car. Gragg's father was a sergeant on the Tulsa,
Oklahoma police force and at this point in his life Gragg's only prior record consisted of minor traffic offenses incurred in Oklahoma.
Gragg agreed to kill Janatanov for payment of $ 3,000, due following Junatanov's assassination. Some divergency in the evidence occurred concerning the next events. One version had it that Gragg, knife in hand, was lying in wait in the alley behind the restaurant one night at closing time, waiting for Junatanov to emerge. However, Junatanov, upon exiting the restaurant, saw Gragg "with something in his hand" and quickly reentered the restaurant, thus foiling the attempt on his life that could have been made at that time.
On July 20, 1985, about 11:30 a.m. Gragg went to the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant, purchased a soft drink, got a dollar changed, and went to the rear of the restaurant where there was an arcade of video games and pinball machines. Gragg either lost or pretended to lose a quarter in one of the machines and asked Johnny how he could get his quarter back. At this point, Johnny had not previously met Gragg.
Junatanov was summoned to the rear of the restaurant and was confronted by Gragg about the loss of the quarter. Junatanov grabbed Gragg by the hair and slammed his head against the wall. Gragg stabbed Junatanov once in the abdomen and fled. At the trial, Gragg did not testify but a taped statement given by Gragg after his arrest was played on a tape recorder. It was intimated Gragg was acting in self-defense. Junatanov testified he had recognized Gragg from the previous encounter in the alley and that Junatanov perceived Gragg to be an assailant. Whatever the circumstance, Junatanov's liver was lacerated by the stab wound and he was taken to the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital suffering internal bleeding. He had a convulsion while awaiting treatment in the emergency room at the hospital. Emergency surgery was performed at the hospital to repair Junatanov's liver.
Gragg was refused payment by Johnny because Junatanov had not died. Later, Johnny reported to Solorzano the hospital had advised Johnny that Junatanov would be confined in the hospital for the next two or three days. Johnny suggested Gragg should be shot for botching the job. It was decided Gragg would be given "another chance" after Gragg reaffirmed he still wanted to do the job.
Two days following the emergency surgery, Junatanov awakened in his hospital bed to see Gragg standing beside him. Junatanov shouted and Gragg ran from the room. Junatanov stated he had seen something in Gragg's hand -- Gragg later told Solorzano he had carried a knife into the hospital room but had run from the room when Junatanov started shouting.
Following this, Johnny arranged for Junatanov to be moved to another room in the hospital. Johnny slept overnight in the new room with Junatanov after assuring Junatanov "we will save you -- no one will be able to kill you."
Vieweg had arrived in Hollywood with Gragg sometime around July 13, 1985, and since their arrival had stayed with him at the Hollywood-La Brea Hotel. She hailed Gragg in his car from the street one afternoon, noticing Gragg had gotten a haircut and new clothes. Gragg had told her he had gotten a job. She returned with Gragg to the motel room where she met Johnny and watched TV while Johnny and Gragg had a discussion. Vieweg accompanied Gragg to the hospital just before noon on July 21st. Gragg advised her at the time he was going to finish what he had started -- that he had "to finish off" Johnny's father. Vieweg observed Gragg conceal a knife with about an 8-inch blade under his jacket -- a knife Vieweg testified she knew Gragg had brought with him on their trip from Oklahoma. After about a 45-minute stay in Gragg's car at the hospital, Vieweg stated Gragg returned and reported he was unable to carry through because there were too many people around Junatanov's room.
The next day Johnny returned to the motel room. Gragg, Solorzano, Vieweg and one Darryl Plant were present. Johnny proposed to Vieweg that he wanted to kill his father by injecting him with sulfuric acid based battery fluid and wanted to know whether she would do it. Vieweg was destitute and wanted money to return to Oklahoma, so she agreed. Vieweg then went with Johnny, Solorzano, Gragg and Plant to a uniform store across the street from the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, where Johnny made the credit card purchase of a nurse's uniform, white shoes and stockings, as well as a nurse's nameplate inscribed with the name "Cathy."
All returned to the motel where Vieweg changed into the uniform just purchased. Solorzano handed Vieweg two hypodermic syringes someone had filled with battery acid. Johnny announced he was going to return to the restaurant and Gragg assured Johnny they would report back to him there. Gragg and Plant took Vieweg back to the hospital.
Gragg stayed in the car while Vieweg and Plant entered the hospital. Vieweg was fearful she would be stopped but found the room where Junatanov was by following directions Johnny had given her. Junatanov was in the room with a bodyguard. Vieweg recognized Junatanov from a previous time she had seen him in the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant, when she had gone there with Gragg.
Johnny had previously advised Vieweg that Junatanov had complained of headaches and pain in the area of his stab wound. Vieweg asked Junatanov how his headaches and the pain in his side were, and that she had two injections for him -- one for each complaint.
Vieweg attempted to inject one syringe into a vein in Junatanov's arm, but he insisted, instead, that she inject him near the top of his arm. She complied. Junatanov immediately complained his arm burned and Vieweg said she would go find the doctor and return. Instead, with considerable fear of apprehension, she left the hospital.
Plant had positioned himself outside the door to Junatanov's room. When Vieweg left the room, Plant asked if she "had done it." When she said she had, he replied "good" and hugged her. Vieweg discarded the syringe she had used on Junatanov in the parking lot of the hospital where Gragg was waiting in the car. Vieweg insisted they leave but Gragg remained incredulous -- he repeated several times "Did you do it?" or "I can't believe you did it." and "Are you telling me the truth?"
Gragg and Vieweg saw Johnny two or three days later after having moved to a different motel. Johnny brought them some food from the restaurant, but reported that Junatanov had survived and his condition was improving. Gragg upbraided Vieweg for not having injected the battery acid into a vein in Junatanov's arm. Johnny was also angry and Vieweg became frightened. Gragg insisted on payment of at least half the promised $ 3,000 from Johnny but was refused any payment at all because the assassination had failed.
Thereafter, Vieweg left Hollywood without telling Gragg and returned to Oklahoma. She was eventually extradited and was originally designated a defendant in the case but settled her case through the plea-bargaining process. She was sentenced to a term of five years California Youth Authority confinement and was also required to give testimony at the trial.
The whole plot against Junatanov unravelled when Solorzano, in a probable attempt to ameliorate a pending grand theft auto charge, introduced Johnny to a Los Angeles Police Department undercover officer, one Sal Flamenco, in a hastily revived plot to pay Flamenco $ 5,000 if he would kill Junatanov with either a .22 caliber gun or shotgun which Johnny was prepared to provide. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Junatanov following these episodes claims to have reformed, but he recanted. In a taped interview played before the jury a promise was made never to beat his wife or children again in a confession made to a Lubivatcher rabbi. The rabbi promised death to Junatanov within two years if this pledge was broken. At the trial, Junatanov insisted the voice on the tape was not his, but that of his son, Oscar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The trial commenced August 26, 1986, and concluded October 10, 1986. As stated, Solorzano had been granted derivative use immunity to be able to testify at the trial, and Vieweg testified under the circumstances above noted. Gragg and Johnny were tried together. Oscar had previously entered a guilty plea and eventually was placed on probation.
Thus, Gragg and Johnny were the defendants tried. Count I alleged the charge of attempted murder against Gragg and Johnny in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). This was the restaurant incident. Count II named Gragg and Johnny as defendants on the same charges. This was "the hospital incident." Count III alleged against Johnny only the charge of solicitation for murder in violation of Penal Code section 653f.
Johnny was acquitted outright on all three counts. Gragg was acquitted on count II, the hospital incident, but was found guilty in count I of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 192, subdivision (a).
A psychiatric workup pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03 was ordered on Gragg which prolonged his probation and sentencing hearing until February 20, 1987. Because his conviction was for attempted voluntary manslaughter, and Penal Code section 664 ordinarily "halves" the range of sentence options when a defendant is convicted of an attempted crime, the range of sentences for voluntary manslaughter of three, six, or eleven years ( Pen. Code, § 193, subd. (a)) was reduced to eighteen months, three or five and a half years.
Upper term and an additional year's enhancement for the use of a knife by Gragg in stabbing Junatanov was the sentence imposed. The total term was six and a half years. Under Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) a maximum restitution fine of $ 10,000 was ordered. Gragg received 800 days presentence incarceration credit, which included 267 days for "good time/work time."
The reporter's transcript runs to some 2,268 pages. However, the error urged in this appeal centers on sentencing issues so that attention is focused principally on the last 30 pages of the transcript -- the probation and sentencing hearing of February 20, 1987. The only other issue raised in this appeal concerns a claim of error on the trial court's part for refusal to instruct the jury that assault with a deadly weapon (ADW) was a "lesser related" offense.
The "lesser related" issue is addressed first. Gragg's counsel on appeal, by letter brief, cites the recent Supreme Court case of People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1028 [254 Cal.Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1], for the proposition this case is subject to the "lesser related offense" rule established in 1974 by People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 721 [112 Cal.Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913] (disapproved on unrelated points in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 [160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]).
This position is taken with all the clarity hindsight provides, however. It must be remembered the charges in the restaurant and the hospital incidents were both alleged as attempted murder in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). Neither defense counsel nor anyone else could anticipate Gragg's acquittal in the hospital incident or his conviction in the restaurant incident of attempted voluntary manslaughter as a bona fide but strained lesser included offense to the charge of attempted murder.
When defense counsel requested an instruction that ADW was a lesser included offense to a charge of attempted murder the trial court promptly and correctly pointed out the case of In re David S. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 156, 159 [195 Cal.Rptr. 754], which held and reiterated that People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92 [192 Cal.Rptr. 748, 665 P.2d 520] established ADW is not a lesser included offense to the crime of attempted murder.
Nothing else appears in the record where defense counsel thereafter ever requested that an instruction be given in this case that ADW was a lesser related offense. (It should be noted in deference to the defendant that the instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter was given by the trial court, in the first place, over the prosecutor's objection.)
The points made by Gragg's counsel about People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510 [199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303, 50 A.L.R.4th 1055], are certainly true as abstract legal principles, but Geiger specifically states (35 Cal.3d at p. 530) the trial court is never under any duty or obligation, sua sponte or otherwise, ". . . to instruct on related offenses in the absence of a request by the defendant for such instructions."
As is so often the case, appellate counsel can indulge the luxury of contemplation and reflective analysis to suggest on appeal all the "ought to haves" trial counsel should have considered, but did not, while battling in the trenches at the trial. Since Geiger mandates an instruction on any lesser (related or included) offense must be requested, no error can be attributed to the trial court for correct adherence to the rule in "In re David S.," supra, 148 Cal.App.3d 156, nor can any fault be ascribed to the trial court for failure to give an instruction ADW was a lesser related offense since no such specific request for the instruction is discernible from the record.
The Supreme Court's salutary reason for this rule is echoed here – the defendant has an absolute right to full knowledge of the charges against him, hence it is necessary for the defendant to request instructions on any uncharged crime(s) and, for the same reason, it would be error for a court to instruct on lesser offenses sua sponte, since to do so would deprive a defendant of the constitutionally necessary foreknowledge of just what crime(s) he is charged with.
There is no error in this case for failure to instruct on an unrequested lesser related offense theory.
Next, Gragg urges sentencing error occurred. While the points raised by Gragg's counsel are more than mere quibbles, they are not much more than that. The trial court upon imposition of sentence made some prefatory remarks. It is agreed here that the trial court correctly observed the only basis the jury had for finding Gragg guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter was through adoption of the People v. Flannel argument that Gragg had an honest but unreasonable belief it was necessary to defend himself in the restaurant incident from imminent peril posed by Junatanov. (Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668.) Even if the assault on Junatanov at the London-New York Shawarama Restaurant had been pre-planned by Gragg, there was nevertheless an aura of spontaneity to it wholly absent from the insidiously plotted and executed hospital incident, from which Gragg was acquitted despite somber indications from the record Gragg was a leading principal in that episode.
The trial court stated openly, candidly, and correctly that no heed would be paid to the charge on which Gragg was acquitted in imposing sentence. While recognizing Gragg had no prior record, the court nevertheless found him unsuitable for probation based on the court's personal assimilation of all the evidence from the trial as well as from the Penal Code section 1203.03 report which the court had received and considered, and the probation and sentencing report. The court mused aloud Gragg had spent 522 days in actual custody and had earned conduct credits of 267 days so that he had a total presentence credit of 800 days coming to him. The court rejected aloud the notion a low term sentence of 30 months was sufficient (i.e. half of the low term of 3 years or 18 months plus 1 year's enhancement for knife use).
It was the court's view voiced before hearing counsel's remarks that it was felt midterm and the knife use enhancement was an appropriate sentence. n2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 The court stated: ". . . I do think the mitigating factors of no prior record and Mr. Gragg's [knife] use combined with all the other things I have just said all in appropriate. [Sic.] The appropriate sentence in this case." The transcription of the record appears muddled here. "In appropriate" is obviously not "inappropriate" and the words which follow and are set forth as a sentence in the transcript "the appropriate sentence in this case." is a fragmentary sentence with neither verb nor object. In light of these obvious clerical errors it is idle to speculate precisely what was said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In response to the court's remarks the prosecutor cited the court to People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1018-1019 [230 Cal.Rptr. 237], in support of an argument for imposition of the upper term. Moore was urged by the prosecutor to stand for the proposition that where some felony and misdemeanor counts are tried in one action, and convictions are obtained only on the misdemeanor charges it is permissible for the sentencing judge to consider the evidence in the felony counts for purposes of imposing sentences on the misdemeanor convictions. Actually, the precise issue appealed in Moore was that the probation sentencing report on Moore referred to facts brought out in trial of the felony counts which was argued to be improper to use in the imposition of misdemeanor sentences. The Moore court rejected this argument by pointing out cases like People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 754 [150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220, 3 A.L.R.4th 1171], and People v. Zikorus (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 324, 333 [197 Cal.Rptr. 509], which allow a trial court to impose sentence even with "responsible unsworn or out-of-court information relative to the crime and to the convicted person's life and characteristics." That information may include raw arrest data and information about arrests for which no convictions were obtained, so long as the information is accurate and reliable, and the judge imposing sentence is not misled into believing a mere arrest to be an actual conviction. Moore also cites People v. Rhines (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 498, 509 [182 Cal. Rptr. 478], where it was noted in passing before addressing the point in issue here, that the trial judge in Rhines heard all the evidence on the count in which the defendant was acquitted from witnesses under oath. The point made by Rhines equally applicable here is that: "Whatever facts the judge here considered were received . . . in a manner that could not have misled him for he knew that defendant was acquitted in II." (Rhines, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 509.) [And] "no prejudice . . . could have occurred as the result of the court's knowledge of the evidence on [the acquitted' count]." (Id. at p. 510.)
Before grappling with the points raised here urging sentencing error it should first be remembered that while a trial judge's function is to preside at trial, rule on evidentiary objections and give the law to the jury, and the jury's function is to winnow findings of fact from all the evidence presented, apply the given law to the facts determined, and return a verdict, both judge and jury identically here, perceived and assimilated the evidence which was presented. It is fatuous to suggest that evidence "which rings a jury's bell" does not also "ring the judge's bell" at the same time. CALJIC instruction No. 1.02, or a similar permutation of that instruction, has warned juries from time immemorial that stricken evidence must not be considered by them and that juries must treat stricken evidence as though they had never heard it. It can be speculated how successful juries are in adherence to this instruction but it is taken as an article of faith juries can effectively accomplish this task. This is expected and demanded of the laity from which jury panels are drawn -- they are persons unschooled in the law. If the popular supposition is that lay persons as jurors have the capacity to ignore stricken evidence as CALJIC No. 1.02 requires, then it is almost an insult to suggest that a superior court judge, who must have a requisite 10 years' experience as a lawyer before becoming eligible to be a judge, cannot, in the imposition of sentence, distinguish between what a defendant was acquitted of or convicted of.
In this case the trial court clearly and expressly stated the hospital incident count of which Gragg was acquitted would play no part whatsoever in the sentencing choices. From the precedents previously noted, however, it must be further observed any jury must be convinced by the prosecution's evidence that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (CALJIC No. 2.90) and acquittal of a crime means nothing more or less than the fact the evidence presented by the prosecution on a particular charge did notmeet that burden. It does not mean, most emphatically, that the evidence presented on any charge which results in an acquittal mysteriously vanishes from the scene or is consigned automatically to a purgatory of sorts from which no further utility may be drawn. Evidence equates with information. As the cited Arbuckle, Zikorus, and Rhines cases provide, any reliable information may be utilized by a trial judge in imposing a sentence, whether such information be from within or without the record of the case of the defendant to be sentenced.
The fact prosecution evidence does not prove the guilt of the defendant on a charge beyond a reasonable doubt does not rob that evidence of its informative value, nor does it make any information gleaned from such evidence unreliable. What is not prohibited by law is a judge's use of reliable information from any source from which to draw sentencing conclusions. What is prohibited is the unwarranted practice of imposing extra punishment on a defendant convicted of one charge based on a conclusion by the judge the jury erred in acquitting the defendant on any companion charges. (People v. Takencareof (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 492 [174 Cal.Rptr. 112].)
After the prosecutor properly cited to the trial court the Moore case, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, and after an opportunity to read and consider Moore, the trial court correctly concluded the totality of information received from all the evidence in the case was available to her to consider for sentencing purposes in the imposition of Gragg's sentence.
In reviewing the transcript of the sentencing hearing the impression emerges that superior advocacy by the prosecutor carried the day at the sentencing. This is in no manner disparaging or belittling of the remarkable trial results obtained by defense counsel, however. In the final analysis of the case it would seem Junatanov was portrayed to be so brutish, loathsome and despicable that the abundant evidence of guilt of the charged defendants was somehow ameliorated to the extent of Johnny's total acquittal on all three counts, and conviction of Graggon count I only of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. This was a prodigious feat of lawyering on the part of defense counsel.
To address the specific issues which are claimed to be sentencing error it should be pointed out the probation department's report on Gragg recommended the high base term and "knife enhanced" sentence of six and a half years, the sentence which was actually imposed. The report cited the aggravating factors were (1) great violence and threat of great bodily harm disclosing a high degree of cruelty and viciousness; (2) the victim was particularly vulnerable; (3) the planning, sophistication or professionalism with which the crime was carried out indicates premeditation. One mitigating factor was cited -- the defendant had no extensive prior arrest history.
As legally required, the trial court stated the reasons relied upon for imposition of the high term. In quoting the trial court's remarks numerical reference to the sentencing rules in the California Rules of Court are parenthetically inserted. The trial court stated: "To summarize briefly, the crime involved is violent. (414(c)(1); 421(a)(1).) It involved the use of deadly weapon. (414(c)(3).) You had a particularly vulnerable victim. (414(c)(2).) There was careful planning involved, (414(c)(5)) and while the crime was not sophisticated or professional in any sense of the word, it was carefully planned, and there was substantial premeditation. (414(c)(1).) For all of those reasons plus the comments made earlier the high term is justified."
The court previously noted the only mitigating factor was Gragg's lack of a prior criminal record and that "the circumstances in aggravation so far outweigh the single circumstance in mitigation as to justify high term."
Defendant's argument the hospital incident was used to invoke a high term sentence, although Gragg had been acquitted on that count, is obviated by the unstated but apparent avoidance by the trial court of citing rule 421(a)(5) for the inducement of Vieweg into participation in the hospital incident; and 421(a)(5) using or involving Vieweg as a minor in the commission of the hospital affray on Junatanov.
Junatanov's particular vulnerability in the restaurant incident might be questioned, just as it cannot be questioned seriously in the hospital incident, but even by "eliminating that reason" from the thinking of this court, there still remains a far heavier tilt of aggravating circumstances over mitigating circumstances to be considered. There is therefore substantial evidence in the record before this court to support each sentencing rule relied on by the trial court, with the exception of the "particular vulnerability" of Junatanov in the restaurant incident. "The power of a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion of the jury or the findings of the trial court, begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that will support such conclusions or findings." (5 Cal.Jur.3d, Appellate Review, § 536, p. 232.)
The simple process of stating a plurality of citable sentencing rules either in aggravation or mitigation is a disfavored way of determining a sentence. The requirement imposed on a trial court is to give voice through a stated weighing process on the record the reasons why chosen circumstances mitigate or aggravate without necessary regard to the fact in a given case there may be a greater number of one kind of such factors than the other. The trial court undertook just such a process in reaching the conclusions made in this case.
Gragg complained the maximum fine of $ 10,000 imposed under Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) is excessive. People v. Romero (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1148, 1156 [213 Cal.Rptr. 774], seems to say the trial court need not specify reasons for imposing any amount of fine selected between the $ 100/10,000 parameters provided in section 13967, subdivision (a). Only when the minimum fine of $ 100 is waived does it become necessary to state reasons for the waiver.
Notwithstanding, the trial court was mandatorily required by the statute itself to consider "any relevant factor" including but not limited to the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant, . . . and the extent to which others have suffered loss. Psychological as well as pecuniary loss may be considered. People v. Wyman (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 810, 816 [212 Cal.Rptr. 668], provides "[i]n the absence of a clear showing of abuse, the trial court's sentencing discretion will not be disturbed on appeal. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68 [120 Cal.Rptr. 577, 534 P.2d 65] . . . .)" It was reported in the probation and sentencing report Gragg claimed to have been the beneficiary of a trust fund in Oklahoma, and that he was not impecunious and the trial court so noted in imposing the $10,000 fine. Displeasure voiced by Gragg over the $ 10,000 fine does not equate with abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing such fine.
Further direct attention need not be paid to Gragg's claim of sentencing error in light of the conclusion reached that substantial evidence exists in the record to affirm the trial court's conclusion the circumstances in aggravation outweigh those in mitigation, thus justifying imposition of the sentence Gragg received.
____________________________________________________________________________________
FAIR USE NOTICE
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
____________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment