People v. Stepp

California Court of Appeal Oct 24, 1947 No. Crim. No. 2465Published

Before: Nourse, Pooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the defendant failed to object to the admission of accusatory statements at trial, the evidence is beyond attack on appeal and may be considered in support of the judgment.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of robbery.
Whether the admission of accusatory statements without objection at trial constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the rule that unless objection to it is made at the trial such evidence is beyond attack on appeal and may be considered in support of the judgment.”

“Even if it be assumed that said statement constituted inadmissible hearsay, it is to be considered on appeal in support of the judgment when no objection or motion to strike or to limit its effect was made in the trial court.”

Opinion

82 Cal.App.2d 49 (1947) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

ROBERT GEORGE STEPP, Appellant.

Crim. No. 2465. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Two.

Oct. 24, 1947. Alfred J. Hennessy for Appellant.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and David K. Lener, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

NOURSE, P. J.

Defendant and one other were charged under two informations with two acts of robbery. The codefendant pleaded insanity and at the time of defendant's trial was confined in the state hospital for the criminal insane. The two informations were consolidated as to the defendant Stepp and he was found guilty under both. This defendant rejected the terms of an order of probation and appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment.

The codefendant was shown to have held up a drugstore in August, 1946, and another on September 1 of the same year. In both instances he appeared alone in the drugstore using a gun later found in appellant's possession. In both instances he ran from the store to a waiting automobile which belonged to appellant. In both instances a man was waiting for him in the driver's seat and drove the car out of the neighborhood. The automobile and the gun used in these holdups were both identified as identical or similar to those found in appellant's possession.

After the arrest of the two defendants, and while two police inspectors were interrogating them, the codefendant admitted that he had committed both robberies, that appellant was in on both of them, that they had used appellant's automobile, and that they had divided the loot between them. When appellant was asked if he had anything to say he answered: "I have nothing to say, I remain mute." No objection was made to this testimony, hence, the only question is whether the evidence as a whole is sufficient to support the verdict.

The evidence of the conversation is found in the testimony of one of the police inspectors. He gave a full account of the conversation, the accusation made by the codefendant, the inquiry made to appellant as to whether he wanted to answer, and the failure of appellant to make any denial. The latter [51]

People v. Stepp

AI Brief

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DOOLING, J.

Opinion — Nourse

Dissent — Pooling

AI Brief