People v. Sowers

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1962 No. Crim. 3244Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statute of limitations for a criminal action is tolled while a defendant is outside the state, regardless of their availability for extradition, and that fingerprinting and the admission of certified prison records do not violate a defendant's constitutional rights.

Issues

Whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial by the state's failure to seek extradition while he was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.
Whether Penal Code section 802 tolls the statute of limitations when a defendant is outside the state but available for extradition.
Whether the admission of certified federal prison records to prove absence from the state was proper.
Whether the taking of fingerprints and their admission into evidence constitutes self-incrimination.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s interpretation of section 802 would engraft language upon that section which is not there.”

“The privilege against self-crimination, as established by courts in this state, relates primarily to testimonial compulsion.”

“It follows that fingerprints, not being in the nature of testimonial compulsion, do not come within the privilege.”

PEEK, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of a violation of section 4531 of the Penal Code (escape), and from the order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.

The record shows that defendant, while an inmate at Folsom State Prison, serving a term for conviction of forgery, escaped from an honor camp operated by the prison in Placer County. Subsequently, he was arrested in Texas on May 10, 1957, and convicted of a violation of the Dyer Act, for which he served a term of imprisonment at the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. At the conclusion of his term, he was returned ■ to California from Leavenworth by California authorities and placed in Folsom to serve the unsatisfied portion of the original forgery sentence.

Following his return and while so incarcerated at Folsom, an information was filed on December 2, 1960, charging him

[642]

with a violation of the above-mentioned escape statute. The first information, being insufficient, was dismissed and on February 16, 1961, an amended information was filed including the charge that defendant had been absent from the state from November 8, 1957, to September 1, 1960, in order to bring the information within the provisions of Penal Code section 802. This section provides in part that “. . . no time during which the defendant is not within this State is a part of any limitation of the time for commencing a criminal action. ’ ’

The ease proceeded to trial on March 14, 1961. As a part of the evidence offered in support of its case, the state called a deputy sheriff who, over defendant’s objection, was allowed to testify that he had taken fingerprints of the defendant. An expert of the State Bureau of Criminal Identification, likewise over defendant’s objection, was allowed to testify that the prints taken at the Placer County jail and those shown in records of Leavenworth Penitentiary were of one and the same person. Also over defendant’s objection, photostatic copies pertaining to defendant’s incarceration at Leavenworth were admitted. No evidence was offered on defendant’s behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged, and from the judgment of conviction which was entered pursuant thereto and from the denial of his motion for a new trial he now appeals.

People v. Sowers

AI Brief

PEEK, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief