People v. Sherman

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 1956 No. Crim. 5459Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding immaterial or hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's physical condition or in denying a continuance to produce a witness whose testimony was not shown to be material.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the defendant's use of a wheelchair to arrive at court.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding a medical report as immaterial and hearsay.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance to secure the testimony of a physician.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The ruling was correct for it was clearly immaterial whether the doctor at the county jail had arranged for defendant to come to court in a wheelchair.”

“The report was not only immaterial but it was also hearsay. It was therefore not an abuse of discretion to exclude it.”

FOX, J.

Defendant Sherman appeals from the judgment of conviction on two counts of armed robbery.

Count 1 involves the robbery of Melvin W. Keel, manager of Cole’s Market in Long Beach, of $12,580 on October 17,

[430]

1954. Sherman and his codefendant Lane

were identified by the victim and Joe Forest, the Coca-Cola man.

Count 2 relates to the robbery of Charles M. Bailey, manager of Market Town, in Gardena, of $5,800 on July 28, 1954. Bailey and John Halsey, delicatessen manager of the market, identified Sherman.

Defendant took the stand and denied participation in each of these robberies. He testified he was at home resting on the dates of the robberies.

Defendant came into court in a wheelchair and wearing a mask over his mouth, such as is used by tubercular patients. In addition to his alibi defense, he also contended that, due to his physical condition, he could not exert himself and therefore could not run out of a store rapidly, as prosecution witnesses testified the robbers did.

To rebut defendant’s story that he was physically unable to participate in the robberies, the People called George Longanecker, an apartment-house owner in Long Beach where defendant had resided from July 15, 1954, to the time of his arrest on November 10, 1954. This was a two-story building. Longanecker related that he wanted a television installed, and that defendant assembled the antenna on the ground, then carried it up a ladder and installed it on the roof without anyone’s help. Defendant denied having climbed the ladder and insisted that a television man had installed the antenna.

Defendant bases his claim for a reversal on (1) the exclusion of certain evidence, and (2) the refusal of the trial court to grant a continuance to enable Dr. Crahan, the county jail physician, to appear and testify in his behalf.

Defendant complains of the exclusion of two items of evidence. The first relates to the means the county jail doctor provided for him to come to court; the second is the exclusion of Dr. Crahan’s medical report on him.

People v. Sherman

AI Brief

FOX, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief