People v. Cummings

CRAIL, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction under section 112 of the California Vehicle Act of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

It is the first contention of the defendant that the court erred in admitting testimony by the arresting officer relative “to oral statements made by the defendant on interrogation in the District Attorney's office after his arrest at a time when only the officials were present, defendant not being represented by counsel, to show that the defendant answered ‘yes’ on interrogation as to whether he was intoxicated the night before when arrested”. No objection was made in the trial court to the introduction of such testimony, and no motion was made to strike it. The objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. There was a conflict in the evidence concerning whether or not the statements

[408]

were voluntary. The - statement of defendant that he was intoxicated when arrested is not a confession but merely an admission

(People

v.

Ferdinand,

194 Cal. 555 [229 Pac. 341];

People

v.

Luzovich,

126 Cal. App. 465 [16 Pac. (2d) 144]), and hence was admissible regardless of whether it was free and voluntary

(People

v.

Gonzales,

72 Cal. App. 626 [237 Pac. 812];

People

v.

Baker,

94 Cal. App. 628 [271 Pac. 765];

People

v.