People v. Esquibel

California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 1975 No. Crim. 6775Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to relief via writ of coram nobis or habeas corpus because the victim's change in opinion did not constitute newly discovered evidence, fraud, or perjury, and the underlying facts could have been discovered through due diligence at trial.

Issues

Whether a witness's change of opinion based on previously available information constitutes a basis for a writ of coram nobis.
Whether the defendant demonstrated fraud, duress, or excusable mistake sufficient to set aside a criminal conviction.
Whether the prosecution had an affirmative duty to elicit specific testimony from an eyewitness.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Forming a new opinion based on a recently learned fact which could have been brought out at trial is not a basis for relief under coram nobis.”

“If the fact was not known by defendant at the trial, it could have been; if the fact had been disclosed at trial, the verdict would not necessarily have been different.”

“Just because a person changes his opinion does not mean he has perjured himself.”

[593]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

As a result of his involvement in a riot at the El Monte County Park, a lovely picnic ground in the east greater San Diego area, defendant Ernest Patrick Esquibel was convicted by a jury of several felonies and misdemeanors, including assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), riot (Pen. Code, §§ 404, 405), assault (Pen. Code, § 240), resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148), malicious mischief (Pen. Code, § 594), and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 69). He received three years probation on July 31, 1972.

Two and one-half years later Esquibel petitioned for a writ of error

coram nobis

in the superior court to overturn the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)).

At the criminal trial held about three months after the incident, the victim of the assault, Officer P. C. Scott, testified he thought Esquibel had intentionally hit him with the pickup truck Esquibel was driving, thus causing Scott to be thrown upon its hood and seriously injured. About two years later, in connection with a civil suit which Scott had brought against Esquibel to recover for his personal injuries, Scott talked with Reserve Officer Rizzo, an eyewitness to the incident. Rizzo told Scott Esquibel was not looking at Scott when the truck hit him. When Scott’s deposition was taken as part of the civil action he then testified that in his opinion, based on what Rizzo had said, Esquibel had only been negligent in driving the truck. This variance in the victim’s testimony was the basis for the writ of

coram nobis,

filed shortly after Scott’s deposition, which suggested there was fraud or mistake in the earlier criminal trial. The trial court treated the petition as one for habeas corpus and granted the writ in the interest of justice, to correct the record, by striking the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, but leaving the other felony and misdemeanor convictions intact. The People appeal the order, contending there is no form of relief available to Esquibel under these circumstances. As commendable as the superior court’s motives are to arrive at substantial justice, it appears the People are correct.

People v. Esquibel

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief