People v. Parks

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict which found appellant guilty of three armed robberies, and from the order denying a new trial.

It is unnecessary to narrate the evidence, as appellant does not challenge the sufficiency thereof to support the verdict. However, he was positively identified by the victims of the robberies.

It appears from the record that upon appellant’s arrest he was questioned by four officers, and at that time he denied his guilt. On the following day, he was further interrogated and again insisted that he was innocent. He was held in custody and four days later was taken to the office of a deputy district attorney. Appellant there declined to answer any questions addressed to him, stating that he did not want to talk “about anything” until he “talked to an attorney.” This was brought out by the deputy district attorney on cross-examination of appellant and furnishes the basis for one of two assignments of error on appeal. The other assignment is based on alleged prejudicial misconduct of the trial judge in respect to the same matter.

Without objection, the deputy district attorney asked appellant if at the time of the aforementioned interview he had not asked him various questions as to his whereabouts at the times of the robberies, as to whom he was with and as to what he had been doing and if he had not refused to answer. Appellant admitted that this was so. The deputy district attorney continued this line of questioning, asking: “Q. You made no response at all? A. Yes, sir, I did. I said I did not want to talk to you about anything until I talked to an attorney. Q. And do you remember my asking a question, ‘Do you know where Grady’s Bottle Shop is,’ and do you remember you didn’t say anything? You didn’t answer that? A. I don’t remember your asking that specific question.”

At that point, appellant’s counsel interposed an objection on the ground that the deputy district attorney was going beyond the scope of proper cross-examination. The objection was overruled, and the deputy district, attorney continued. His next question was: “Q. Do you remember my asking

[539]

you this question: ‘Do you know you were identified by Mr. and Mrs. Smith who own the Grady’s Bottle Shop as the person who robbed the bottle shop twice ? ’ Do you remember you made no response to that?”