People v. Earl

California Court of Appeal Nov 13, 1935 No. Crim. 2760Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, that the trial court's improper questioning of a defendant did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, and that the verdict was not void for failing to specify the degree of robbery.

Issues

Whether the testimony of an accomplice and the defendants' confessions were sufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy.
Whether the trial court's improper remarks and questioning of a defendant constituted reversible error.
Whether a verdict is void for uncertainty if it fails to fix the degree of robbery contemplated by a conspiracy.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The testimony of Dalebout, even though he was an accomplice, is sufficient to establish facts necessary to constitute the crime, and the confessions of the appellants are sufficient to furnish the corroboration required by the code.”

“The statements made by the court and the questions asked were not proper.”

“In view of all of the evidence in the case, we cannot say that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that it calls for a reversal of the judgment.”

WOOD, J.

The information charged defendants Earl, Ryan, Dalebout and Rasmussen with the crime of conspiracy

[165]

to commit robbery. The information was dismissed as to defendant Dalebout in order that he might become a witness for the People. At the close of the prosecution’s evidence the court dismissed the charge as to defendant Rasmussen for insufficiency of the evidence. Defendants Earl and Ryan prosecute this appeal from a judgment of conviction.

From the testimony of Dalebout it appears that in January, 1935, the defendants met and agreed upon a plan to go to a residence at 414 South Oxford Street, Los Angeles, where they were to enter the house and secure certain money and bonds, and, if necessary, bind the occupants of the house with rope. Later all of the defendants went to the vicinity of 414 South Oxford Street for the purpose of carrying out the object of .the conspiracy and waited for a considerable length of time while they were watching the movements of an employee at the residence, but they desisted from entering the house for the reason that it appeared to them that the robbery could not be successfully consummated. They took with them a piece of rope and a gun. A witness testified that defendant Rasmussen and another man had, before the trip to the Oxford Street residence, appeared at the store where he was employed and had purchased rope similar to the rope taken to the residence in question. Ryan admitted in the office of the district attorney that he had accompanied Rasmussen at the time the rope was purchased. Evidence was admitted that both of the appellants made statements after their arrest and before the trial which virtually amounted to confessions that they had taken part in the conspiracy and that they had accompanied the other .defendants to the neighborhood of 414 South Oxford Street as related by Dalebout.

The testimony of Dalebout, even though he was an accomplice, is sufficient to establish facts necessary to constitute the crime, and the confessions of the appellants are sufficient to furnish the corroboration required by the code.

(People

Henson,

People v. Earl

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief