People v. Marsh

California Court of Appeal May 8, 1959 No. Crim. 1506Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for prison escape, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting expert testimony regarding the effects of hypnosis.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow a hypnotic demonstration in the courtroom.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction despite the defense of hypnotic suggestion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The effects of hypnosis are not occurrences of such common knowledge and experience that men of ordinary education can form a conclusion concerning them as capably as an expert witness.”

“The admission of such evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial court. No abuse of discretion here appears.”

“That the jury disbelieved appellant’s contentions is manifest and there is ample evidence to support the verdict.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Appellant was charged with the crime of escape from a state prison, in violation of section 4530 of the Penal Code. Trial by jury resulted in a conviction.

At the trial it was stipulated that the appellant was committed to the California Institution for Men at Chino on September 13, 1955; that on February 12, 1958, while still a prisoner at Chino, he left without permission, traveled to Los Angeles, and was apprehended the next day. In appellant’s written statement made five days after his escape, he recited the substance of the foregoing facts regarding his escape and apprehension and added: “It is a bum beef. I want to go in and cop a plea as soon as possible and get my time in order that I can get back to Quentin and get this over. ’ ’ The prosecution’s case was completed by the admission in evidence of official records showing that appellant was serving a sentence upon conviction of first degree robbery when he escaped.

The appellant’s sole defense was that his escape was not his voluntary act but was caused by a hypnotic suggestion given him by a fellow inmate, one Jack A. Cox. Cox testified that he had obtained his knowledge of hypnosis from books and had hypnotized hundreds of persons, including appellant; that on February 12, 1958, he again hypnotized the appellant and while he was in the trance suggested to him that he “go back where he . . . was having a good time.” Cox explained that this hypnotic suggestion was intended only to cause “age regression” but evidently appellant interpreted it as a suggestion that he leave prison and return to the area in which he lived prior to his confinement. Cox further testified that he became worried when he was unable to locate appellant within the prison and that he left the prison without permission in order to find appellant and return him to prison; that although he had no actual knowledge of appellant’s whereabouts,

[286]

he traveled to Wilmington, California, where appellant had previously resided; that he found appellant on Avalon Boulevard and brought him out of a hypnotic trance; and that appellant and Cox then went into a restaurant and were there having coffee when the police arrested them.

On cross-examination Cox admitted making a statement on February 17, 1955, in which he said:

People v. Marsh

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief