People v. Curley

NOURSE, P. J.

Appellants, Alvin Eugene Curley and Gilbert Snider, were charged by information on five counts for robbery. They were tried by a jury, acquitted as to the first count and found guilty on the remaining four. Appellants filed separate notices of appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial and from the judgments. Counsel appearing for each defendant did not conduct the trial. Both were assigned by this court to prosecute the appeals.

[579]

The robberies upon which the five counts were based were alleged as follows:

First Count: On March 27, 1951, about 10:15 p.m. Mr. Sidney R. Sayre, owner and operator of a drugstore in San Lorenzo, was accosted at his place of business by two men who took approximately $150 in cash, 300 Delauded tablets (a derivative of morphine) and a partially filled can of Hycodan powder. A flashlight later found in the possession of one of the appellants was claimed to be similar to one used by Mr. Sayre in his business, which was missing after the robbery.

Second Count: On April 6, 1951, two men entered the Bal Theatre as it was being closed for the night and robbed the owner, Reme LaMarre of about $500.

Third Count: On April 6, 1951, Ray C. Thome, manager of the Bal Theatre was robbed of $25.

Fourth Count: On April 9, 1951, two men entered the Pioneer Ranch Market in San Leandro and robbed Frank Sunada, an employee, of $2.00.

Fifth Count: April 9, 1951, George Matsumoto, an employee of the Pioneer Ranch Market was robbed of $3.00. On the morning following the robbery the manager of the Pioneer Ranch Market found that the drug department was not in its customary order and subsequently certain cosmetics such as were carried in the drug department were found in the possession of the prosecution witness, Emerick, who explained they had been left with him by appellants.

Appellant Snider bases his appeal on three points:

(.1) The circumstances of the custody of appellant by the authorities prior to his being charged with a crime indicate that the detention was contrary to proper official conduct; the confession thereby obtained was involuntary and induced by duress and coercion.