People v. Bridges
Before: Doran
DORAN, J.
Defendant and appellant was accused by information of the crime of burglary; nine counts were alleged. Pound guilty by a jury of all counts, defendant appeals from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial.
It is urged on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment and that the admission of certain evi
[914]
denee was prejudicial error. With regard to the first mentioned contention it is argued that the testimony of an accomplice, upon which the prosecution relies, is not sufficiently corroborated. Briefly, the record reveals that one Jack Just-man who was jointly charged as a defendant, pleaded guilty on the day of trial and testified for the plaintiff. Property from four of the burglaries was found in possession of appellant at the time of the arrest. As to another count, evidence of the presence of a car at the scene of the burglary similar to the one appellant was in when arrested, was introduced. It also appears that a comprehensive statement made by Just-man to the arresting officers was recorded in shorthand and reduced to writing. This statement was read to appellant by the officers, after which appellant was asked, “What do you think of it now, Mike?,” to which appellant replied, “I have nothing to say, that is his statement.” Appellant’s explanation regarding the possession of the stolen articles was in evidence.
Defendant and appellant offered no affirmative defense at the trial.
The corroboration was sufficient as a matter of law. The possession of the stolen articles in connection with some of the counts; the defendant’s explanation as to their possession, if disbelieved, and the defendant’s failure to deny guilt in such circumstances, amounted to sufficient corroboration. “The commission of the offense and the circumstances thereof,” referred to in section 1111 of the Penal Code, was definitely established by other evidence.
Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it, of itself tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, although it is slight, and entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration.
(People
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)