People v. Solomon

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 1969 No. Crim. 3557Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that fingerprint evidence taken during a judicially authorized detention is admissible, that the police legally detained the defendant's companions, and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting spontaneous declarations and limiting deceptive closing arguments.

Issues

Whether fingerprint evidence taken after an illegal arrest but during a judicially authorized detention is admissible.
Whether the police legally obtained the identities of the defendant's companions through a temporary investigative detention.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the victim's statements as spontaneous declarations.
Whether the trial court properly limited defense argument regarding the victim's failure to identify the defendant in court.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Solomon’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the police took samples of his fingerprints during a judicially authorized detention.”

“The exclusionary rule has developed to protect individual rights and to prevent illegal police action. It does not serve its purpose if used to create, out of whole cloth, affirmative evidence favorable to the defense.”

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling Miss Knox’s statement to Mrs. Craft was spontaneous and thus admissible.”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

David Harold Solomon appeals a judgment, after jury trial, convicting him of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207) and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).

About 3:30 a.m., January 22, 1968, in Imperial Beach, Solomon and two juvenile male companions he had met in Tijuana stopped a car driven by Pamela Knox by angling Solomon’s car in front of hers, blocking its way. One of Solomon’s companions asked Miss Knox for money. She said she had none. Solomon left the wheel of his car, told his companion to return to his car, told Miss Knox he had a knife, told her to move over in the seat and struck her on the cheek with his fist. He entered the car and drove two or three blocks. His companions followed in Solomon’s car. Solomon demanded money. Miss Knox gave him a dollar saying it was all she had.

Solomon stopped Miss Knox’s car. One of the boys came over from Solomon’s car and Solomon handed him the dollar, instructing him to “put this in the gas tank and then follow us.”

Miss Knox opened the car door. Solomon grabbed her, holding on as she got out. She screamed, Solomon put his hand over her mouth and knocked her to the sidewalk. A light came on in a nearby house. Solomon departed in his car with his companions.

Miss Knox went to the lighted house where its owners, Mr. and Mrs. Craft, took her in and called the police. Miss Knox told the Crafts what had happened.

Within an hour, Solomon and his companions hailed a policeman in Coronado asking him where they might find an open gas station. The officer had heard a radio report of Miss Knox’s robbery describing the suspects as one black and two white adults in a dark green Mustang car. Solomon is Black, his companions white and his car a dark green Mercury Cougar. The officer told Solomon to follow him to the police station where he could

[910]

get them some gas. Solomon followed the officer to the police station where he and his companions were arrested and held as suspects in the kidnaping and robbery of Miss Knox.

In the course of pretrial hearings, the court below ruled Solomon’s arrest was illegal and a confession he made after arrest was suppressed. Miss Knox viewed Solomon and his companions at the station. She identified Solomon and one of his companions as the ones who had accosted her in Imperial Beach. The trial court ruled the lineup was illegal, impermissibly suggestive and forbade evidence of her pretrial identification. The court also disallowed any in-trial identification of Solomon by the victim.

People v. Solomon

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief