People v. Dolan

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 1940 No. Crim. 3279Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the robbery convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting confessions supported by conflicting evidence, that the judge's remarks to the jury were not coercive, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction of the defendant who provided the weapon and vehicle.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting confessions allegedly obtained by coercion.
Whether the trial court's remarks to the jury constituted improper coercion.
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction of defendant Dittmar.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was thus a conflict of evidence as to whether the confessions had been freely and voluntarily made, the determination of which question lay in the sound discretion of the trial judge”

“The statement in the instruction to the jury, “there should be no difficulty in arriving at a verdict in this case’’, gives no indication of the verdict which the judge believed should be reached or that he was coercing the jury”

McCOMB, J.

From judgments of guilty of robbery in the first degree after trial before a jury defendants appeal. There are also appeals from the orders denying their motions for a new trial.

The essential facts are these:

March 13, 1939, defendants Crawford and Dolan entered the store of Levine Cooperage Company in the city of Los Angeles and at the point of a revolver took from the employees the company’s pay roll which consisted of approximately $800. Said defendants then left the premises in an automobile. The gun and automobile used in connection with the robbery were borrowed by defendants Crawford and Dolan from defendant Dittmar, who knew the purposes for which they were to be used. At the time of defendant Dittmar's arrest there was found in his possession some of the money which had been stolen.

Defendants rely for reversal of the judgments upon these propositions:

First: The trial court committed prejudicial error in receiving in evidence confessions of defendants.

Second: The trial court committed prejudicial error, after the jury had deliberated for several hours and had been returned into the courtroom for questioning as to the probability of their reaching a verdict, in making the following statement to them:

[98]

“Well, this case has taken a long time to try, and we had sickness for three days and were interrupted in the course of the trial. I think if all of you ladies and gentlemen will reread those instructions of the Court again and apply those instructions to the evidence in this case, there should be no difficulty in arriving at a verdict in this case. So you will be taken to dinner again at this time and returned here for further deliberations this evening. I don’t think there should be any difficulty in arriving at a verdict in this case. Discuss it, and analyze the evidence and you will not have-any trouble. You may be taken to dinner and returned here this evening, and so ordered.’’

Defendant Dittmar relies upon this additional proposition:

There is no substantial evidence to show that defendant Dittmar participated in the robbery.

People v. Dolan

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief