People v. Hood

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 1956 No. Crim. 1201Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for armed robbery, as the identification of the defendant by the victim presented a question of fact for the jury that will not be disturbed on appeal.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient substantial evidence to support the defendant's conviction for armed robbery.
Whether the victim's identification of the defendant at the city jail was inadmissible hearsay.
Whether the trial court erred in its handling of the jury's request for testimony regarding the identification procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of whether the identification was sufficient was one for fact for the jury and where, as here, its finding is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed.”

“The contention that the testimony of the complaining witness as to his identity of the defendant at the city jail a short time after the robbery was hearsay and therefore inadmissible is without merit.”

MUSSELL, J.

Appellant was charged with armed robbery in an information containing two counts, in the first of which it was alleged that on or about August 1, 1955, he, while armed with a deadly weapon, did wilfully and unlawfully rob one Buddy Glendale Boggess. In count two similar armed robbery of one Robert R. Araujo was alleged to have been committed by appellant on or about June 20, 1955. A jury trial was had which resulted in a verdict of guilty as to count two and a disagreement as to count one. The trial court ordered a mistrial as to count one and judgment of conviction was entered by the court as to count two. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. Defendant appeals from the judgment thereupon entered and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

On June 20, 1955, Robert L. Araujo was working as a service station attendant on the 3 p.m. to midnight shift at a station in Fresno. He testified at the trial that at about 11:30 p.m., while he was in the process of closing up and was near the front door of the station, he saw “this fellow” approach him from the back; that the man was about two feet away and told him to open the door to the office. Araujo hesitated and he was again ordered to open the door. After he had opened it, he entered the office and the man followed directly behind him. Araujo walked to the cash box and the man at the time had his hands on a revolver under his shirt. Araujo was ordered to open the cash box and when he hesitated, the man said “Damn it, open it.” After Araujo had opened the cash box, he was ordered to step back and the man then started taking the money out of the cash drawer. Araujo further testified that he had about $50 in the cash box; that the man was holding the gun “right out in front of him but aiming it right at me”; that after taking the money out of the cash box, the man ordered him to sit down, facing the wall, and said, “Don’t make a funny move or I will blow your brains out,” and then left the station; that while the gun

[587]

was being pointed at him, he observed that it was a small nickel plated revolver. When asked if he would know the man who “put the gun on him and took his money” if he saw him again, he answered in the affirmative and pointed out the defendant to the jury. He stated that he identified the defendant by a black mole on his face and stated he saw him at the city jail while he was being questioned shortly after his arrest; that he recognized the defendant’s voice because “he had a stuttering way of talking” and from his observation of him at the jail, he then knew him to be the man who had held him up at the service station on June 20th.

People v. Hood

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief