People v. Day

California Court of Appeal Sep 27, 1945 No. Crim. 2338Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence, including the defendant's confession and independent proof of the corpus delicti, was sufficient to support a conviction for first degree robbery. It further held that the credibility of witness testimony is a matter for the trier of fact and that the failure to instruct on second degree robbery was not error given the use of a deadly weapon.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti as a foundation for the admission of the defendant's confession.
Whether the witness's identification of the defendant's voice was inherently improbable and thus insufficient to support the verdict.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on second degree robbery.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the general rule that the foundation for the introduction of a confession is sufficient if the commission of the crime is established and the proof of the corpus delicti need not connect the defendant with the crime.”

“Only slight proof which prima facie establishes the corpus delicti is required as foundation for the admission of a defendant’s confession.”

DOOLING, J. pro tem.

The appellant Day and one Miramontes were convicted of first degree robbery. The evidence showed that on August 9, 1944, during the noon lunch hour Miramontes entered the office of the Housing Authority in the city of Richmond and at the point of a pistol compelled the two women employees then present to give him the cash on hand in the office. The only evidence connecting appellant with the robbery, other than his confession introduced over the objection that there was no proof of the corpus delicti as to him, is here recited:

Day had up to some time in July, 1944, been employed in the office of the Housing Authority; shortly before the robbery occurred Day was seen in front of the office and a few moments later one of the two women in the office received a

[3]

telephone call; this witness identified the voice of the man who made this call as that of Day and testified that Day, simulating a Spanish accent, told her that he was locked out of his apartment, giving the address of an apartment which the witness knew was not occupied by Day, and asked to have someone sent from the office with a key to admit him; there were then present in the office the two women and one man; in response to the telephone call the man left the office with the key to the apartment mentioned leaving the two women alone; a few minutes later Miramontes entered and, although he was only slightly acquainted with the office as a tenant of the Housing Authority, directed the women to get the key to the safe from the cash register and to open the safe which was in a back room and not visible from the outer office; and some days after the robbery the manager of the Housing Authority met Day and said to him that the robbery was well planned but poorly executed whereupon Day turned pale and walked away.

The fact that the robbery occurred was testified to positively and in detail by the two women present. It is the general rule that the foundation for the introduction of a confession is sufficient if the commission of the crime is established and the proof of the corpus delicti need not connect the defendant with the crime.

(People

Fierro,

58 Cal.App.2d 215, 220 [136 P.2d 94];

People v. Day

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief