People v. Urrutia

California Court of Appeal Apr 30, 1943 No. Crim. 1819Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon despite the absence of the weapon itself, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting leading questions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon when the weapon was not recovered.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions of witnesses.
Whether the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's guilt should be disturbed on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The nature of the wound together with the direct testimony was sufficient to prove that the assault was committed with a deadly weapon, even if there had been no direct testimony that a knife was seen in the hand of the defendant.”

“It is only where it clearly appears that the court has abused its discretion in the allowance of questions, either leading or suggestive, in the form in which they are propounded that this court would be authorized to disturb the verdict.”

PEEK, J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit murder. There were two trials; at the first, the jury, being unable to reach a verdict, was dismissed; at the second, the defendant was convicted of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to the state penitentiary. He now appeals to this court both from the order denying the motion and from the judgment, particularly citing as error the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the action of the trial court in permitting certain questions and answers.

Jose Guitterez, the victim of the assault, was a farm labor contractor, and had been so engaged for a number of years.

[470]

Shortly after the hour of eleven o’clock on the evening of Sunday, August 16, he visited a saloon named Neocha da Bhomba, in the city of Sacramento, for the purpose of assembling his laborers. His testimony was to the effect that as he entered the saloon he felt someone put a hand on his hip pocket; that he quickly turned and saw the defendant; that he grabbed the defendant and struck him, knocking him to the floor; that while he was thus engaged an unidentified man struck him from behind, cutting his back; that he turned to face his rear attacker; that then the; defendant stood up on one knee and “cut him in the stomach”; that he was taken to the hospital and remained there for nine days.

The barkeeper testified substantially to the same effect, and that he saw the defendant partially arise from the floor on one knee and “cut” Guitterez “in the front.”

Another witness testified that he saw substantially the same events and that he saw defendant “cut” Guitterez “with a knife.”

A policeman who was called to the scene found Guitterez “cut pretty badly.”

The owner of the La Favorita saloon, located near the scene of the assault, testified that the defendant, with a companion, was in her place of business shortly before eleven o’clock on the evening in question; that he acted in a noisy and belligerent manner arguing with another customer; that he had a knife in his hand, which she told him to put away.

People v. Urrutia

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief