By Kaiti Curry
The courtroom was packed as friends and family of the victims and the defendant anxiously watched the next proceedings of People v. Marsh. The defendant, 16-year-old Daniel Marsh, faces two counts of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and several case enhancements.
Case enhancement A involves a special circumstance for multiple murders. The second case enhancement involves a special circumstance for heinous and depraved murder.
Case enhancement C involves lying in wait, and the final case enhancement involves a special circumstance for torture. The defense counsel filed a Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss the special circumstance torture enhancement, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to meet the requirements of this enhancement.
The defendant must have intended to inflict extreme physical pain on a live person with the intent to kill them.
“While a few stab wounds might be solely indicative of an intent to kill, the defendant covered the victims with 128 stab wounds and went far beyond what was necessary simply to kill the victims,” Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Cabral argued.
Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson had argued that many of these injuries could have been inflicted after the victims had died.
“The torture-murder special circumstance requires proof that a defendant intentionally performed acts that were calculated to cause extreme physical pain to the victim,” wrote Mr. Johnson in his motion to dismiss, noting that Mr. Marsh’s alleged confession, that he felt exhilaration during the killings, does not necessarily amount to intent to torture.
After both the People and the defense gave their last remarks, the judge ruled that there is sufficient evidence for the special circumstance torture enhancement and denied the 995 motion.
The judge referenced graphic details from preliminary hearing testimonies as justification to deny the motion.
First, he explained that each victim was stabbed excessively; the victims, Oliver Northup, 87, and his wife Claudia Maupin, 76, were stabbed 67 and 61 times respectively. Second, the judge explained that both victims were alive during the stabbing, thus fulfilling the final requirement for this enhancement.
Consequently, if Marsh is convicted of first degree murder he will face the death penalty or life in prison without the chance of parole, due to the special circumstance torture enhancement.
As he was escorted from the courtroom, a skinny and pale-looking Marsh scanned the audience emotionlessly. A status conference will be held December 6th at 8:30am to follow up.
To sum up, Daniel Marsh, 16, has been charged with double homicide. On April 14, 2013, the bodies of Oliver Northup and Claudia Maupin Northup were found in their home on Cowell Blvd. Authorities were called to do a welfare check on the couple, only to discover the two deceased in their bed.
In September, Officer Mark Hermann testified during the preliminary hearing to being summoned to the residence to do a welfare check on the couple. He testified that, upon arrival, he found a cut screen to an open window but the doors were locked. He said he walked around to the window and shone his flashlight into what was the master bedroom.
Officer Hermann testified that he noticed what appeared to be a male lying on the bed with blood around his mouth and abdomen. He also noticed a female lying on the bed next to him.
Detective Ariel Pineda testified that Mr. Marsh, after questioning, confessed the crime to him.
Mr. Marsh found an open window at the home of Oliver Northup. He told Detective Pineda he cut the screen and got in through the window.
Mr. Marsh said he walked down the hall and heard snoring. He said he entered the room to find the two sleeping, but the female woke and saw him. He said the female screamed and it was then that Marsh began to stab her.
Mr. Marsh stated to Pineda it was like an outer body experience – exhilarating, euphoric, a high as his adrenalin was pumping. Mr. Marsh told the detective he kept wounding the female until he thought she was not breathing. It was about then the elderly male awoke. Marsh told Pineda he struck him in the throat, heard gurgling and assumed he was dead. Marsh admitted to injuring the couple with multiple wounds to their bodies.
I have two specific questions:
1) What evidence was the judge using to conclude that the couple were alive at the time that the multiple
stab wounds were made ?
2) What evidence is there that this was deliberate causation of pain rather than an adrenaline surge
driven frenzy ?
@medwoman…nothing I heard so far in prelim indicated pursuasively they were alive for the multiple wounds. But we only heard very little as of yet. My prayers continue for the young Marsh and both families; whatever the outcome. My trust is in the man in whom has been chosen to defend him thru divine providence.
Kindly..
I thought as much and will continue to follow. Thank you for your efforts to get the courtroom news out to us.
[quote]1) What evidence was the judge using to conclude that the couple were alive at the time that the multiple
stab wounds were made ? [/quote]
What are you asking here?
Are you asking if they were already dead before Marsh started stabbing them?
If not, are you asking at what point they died, the first stab? The fifth stab? The 128th stab?
Gi
I am asking because it is pertinent to the torture enhancement. By definition, you cannot inflict torture on someone who is dead. So the question becomes, at what point did each individual die ? Was there an intent to inflict pain or death. Either is heinous. Only one could be considered torture.
My point is that pain was inflicted whether they died on the first stab or the 60th stab.
“Mr. Marsh told the detective he kept wounding the female until he thought she was not breathing.” So it doesn’t sound like she died with just one wound.
As to what Marsh was thinking at the time, who knows?
Torture to me implies you are purposely keeping someone alive for the purposes of torturing them. It seems unclear if that was actually the case here.
medwoman–I agree the distinction you are inquiring about is very pertinent. As a physician, do you know if it is true that stab wounds while alive tend to generate a lot of bleeding; whereas stab wounds done after death bleed very little? It seems that very careful and complete photography of the bodies, including close-ups, before they were moved, might have resolved this question for some of the wounds (though with over 60 wounds apiece, likely not all).
GI
[quote]As to what Marsh was thinking at the time, who knows?[/quote]
Agreed. And that is precisely the point. To decide that he was “torturing” them you have to know what was in his mind.
jimt
[quote]do you know if it is true that stab wounds while alive tend to generate a lot of bleeding; whereas stab wounds done after death bleed very little? It seems that very careful and complete photography of the bodies, including close-ups, before they were moved, might have resolved this question [/quote]
What I know is that stab wounds in a living person will bleed more than those from a dead individual given that the same blood vessel is injured. What I do not know if this in quantifiable from pictures since my trainng does not include forensics.
Unfortunately the Northrups are no longer around to tell the judge how much pain or torture they felt from the stabbings.
I was curious what the actual legal definition of torture was, this is what I found:
Penal Code 206 provides the legal definition of torture:
[quote]”Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”3[/quote]
“Agreed. And that is precisely the point. To decide that he was “torturing” them you have to know what was in his mind.”
So if someone just wants to kill someone and throws gasoline on them and lights a match you wouldn’t call that torture?
I think stabbing someone 60 times could be considered torture too.
According to B. Nice’s definition that she posted I think it applies there too:
[quote]for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”[/quote]
[quote]for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”[/quote]
I think there must be more to this. If that were true, would not Garzon, and perhaps Lt. Pike also have had enhancements against them since the actions they took have the possibility for the infliction of great bodily harm. And yet neither was so charged.
I don’t think you can say Lt. Pike had a sadistic purpose to spray the troublemakers. Nice try though. As for Garzon, possibly, but what is considered great bodily harm?
Bodily Harm is ironically much more clearly defined:
12022.7. (a) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for three years.
(b) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony which causes the victim to become comatose due to brain injury or to suffer paralysis of a permanent nature shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. As used in this subdivision, “paralysis” means a major or complete loss of motor function resulting from injury to the nervous system or to a muscular mechanism.
(c) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on a person who is 70 years of age or older, other than an accomplice, in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state
prison for five years.
(d) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on a child under the age of five years in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for four, five, or six years.
(e) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or five years. As used in this subdivision, “domestic violence” has the meaning provided in subdivision (b) of Section 13700.
(f) As used in this section, “great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury.
(g) This section shall not apply to murder or manslaughter or a violation of Section 451 or 452. Subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (d)shall not apply if infliction of great bodily injury is an element of the offense.
(h) The court shall impose the additional terms of imprisonment under either subdivision (a), (b), (c), or (d), but may not impose
more than one of those terms for the same offense.
GI
[quote]for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”[/quote]
I think that might depend on which definition of sadistic you are using. If you are using it to mean infliction of pain for sexual pleasure, I would agree with you. If you were using it to mean use of excessive cruelty, I think it might apply. If one knows in advance that the action they are going to take will inflict severe pain, I could see that as excessively cruel.
I agree Medwomen, seems a very broad definition. It seems like it could potentially apply to any violent crime.
My disclaimer: it’s hard for me to discuss this so clinically, especially since so many so close to the crime may be reading this.
I would have assumed that a torture charge enhancement would only apply to actions taken when the victims were alive. Maybe it is unclear enough in this case that the judge thought it should be left up to the jury?
I realize I was misreading torture definition. So for it to apply the bodily harm must have been committed for one of the following reasons: revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose.
The only one I could possibly see applying given the evidence I’ve heard so far is sadistic purpose.
“It would be helpful to look up the legal definition of torture as opposed to the colloquial usage.”
One step ahead of you, or you were one thread post behind me…
David something weird is happening with your posts. Somehow the post times are being shifted forward?
For clarity: “What evidence was the judge using to conclude that the couple were alive at the time that the multiple
stab wounds were made ?”
In a preliminary hearing judge considers all evidence in best possible light for the prosecution, believing that facts are to be determined by the jury, not the court. In this case, there was testimony by an investigating officer regarding multiple stab wounds. In a preliminary hearing that is sufficient to hold someone to answer to a charge. It doesn’t mean a jury will convict, which is a much higher standard.
“Torture to me implies you are purposely keeping someone alive for the purposes of torturing them. It seems unclear if that was actually the case here.”
It would be helpful to look up the legal definition of torture as opposed to the colloquial usage.
“Agreed. And that is precisely the point. To decide that he was “torturing” them you have to know what was in his mind.”
And basically what the judge is doing is leaving that for a jury to determine.
“One step ahead of you, or you were one thread post behind me…”
Saw that right after I posted.
“David something weird is happening with your posts. Somehow the post times are being shifted forward? “
Very weird. Can’t wait for the new site.
[quote]Very weird. Can’t wait for the new site. [/quote]
I hope you’re not using the same company that Obamacare used. LOL
So I’m still in clear if I’m reading the definition correctly….does this seem accurate?
“So for it to apply the bodily harm must have been committed for one of the following reasons: revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose.”
and since you can’t directly prove those charges – although i’m sure the da will play up the exhilaration as part of the sadistic purpose – they will attempt to infer these motivations from his actions. the nice thing for a prosecutor is that it allows them to introduce a whole range of evidence in order to prove the charges. evidence that will help them get a conviction.