gavel.jpgThe California Supreme Court today upheld the death sentence of an Oakland man who fatally stabbed a social worker in her home and cut off her finger to obtain her rings in 1988.

Gregory Tate, 43, of Oakland, was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court in 1992 of the murder of Sarah LaChapelle, 56, and sentenced to death the following year.

LaChapelle lived on the same street in East Oakland as Tate’s grandmother, with whom Tate lived.

LaChapelle’s body was discovered by her son, Anthony LaChapelle, on the morning of April 19, 1988. She had a butcher knife embedded in her back, a barbecue fork in her neck and her ring finger cut off.

She was later found to have suffered 24 stab wounds from two knives and an additional 28 puncture wounds.

Tate was arrested later that day in LaChapelle’s stolen Oldsmobile Cutlass, which contained her television and videocassette recorder. His girlfriend later testified he had temporarily given her LaChapelle’s wedding band and engagement ring.

Tate’s first-degree murder conviction and death sentence were unanimously upheld by the state high court in a ruling issued in San Francisco.

The panel rejected a series of appeal claims in which Tate argued there were errors in jury selection, jury instructions and the conduct of prosecutors during his trial in the court of Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi.

Justice Marvin Baxter, the author of the opinion, wrote, “The evidence of defendant’s guilt as the lone robber and killer of Sarah LaChapelle was strongly persuasive.”

Tate’s direct appeal to the state Supreme Court was the first step in the death penalty appeals process in California.

He can now continue appeals through habeas corpus petitions in the state and federal court systems.

Tate’s defense lawyers argued at his trial that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.

Tate testified at the trial and said he was innocent of the murder. He said he had gone to LaChapelle’s house and had seen two men leave the house and drop a pillowcase containing the stolen TV, recorder and jewelry, which he then picked up.

During the penalty phase of the trial, the defense attorneys argued that he had suffered from an abusive childhood.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Jimbo

    Referring to the Supreme Court of California as an “SF Based Court” is completely misleading. The court applies to the entire state, of course; it just sits occasionally in San Francisco (along with Sacramento and Los Angeles). In fact, it’s a portrayal that is usually used by the right-wing to complain about what they perceive as overly liberal rulings (such as the decision to allow same-sex marriage, which the Protect Marriage dopes incorrectly called a ruling by “four liberal San Francisco judges”). It would be nice if the MSM stopped labeling the court as an “SF Based Court” when in fact San Francisco is only one of the locations where it sits.