People v. Shawver

California Court of Appeal Jul 20, 1965 No. Crim. 10352Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's confession was admissible because the police were engaged in a legitimate investigatory process rather than a custodial interrogation, and that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's findings on intent and the completion of the robbery.

Issues

Whether the admission of the defendant's statement to police violated the rules established in People v. Dorado.
Whether the defendant was too intoxicated to form the specific intent required for robbery.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a completed robbery rather than an attempted robbery.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The conflict was for the trial court, which resolved it against defendant.”

“it was for the trial court to decide whether or not to draw the inference of a completed theft; we cannot here review its conclusion.”

KINGSLEY, J.

— Defendant was charged with a violation of section 211 of the Penal Code (robbery from the person), with three priors. He admitted the priors and, after a trial to the court, was found guilty, it being stipulated that the robbery was in the second degree. A motion for new trial was denied, probation was denied and he was sentenced to state prison.

The prosecuting witness (Alessandro) testified that, between 1 and 2 a.m., while he was walking westerly toward Main Street on Fifth Street, in the City of Los Angeles, he was hit from behind, causing him to fall forward onto his knees and into a doorway. His assailant then jumped on him and attempted to take money from his pocket. The victim seized his assailant’s wrist, wrestled with him and yelled for help. A nearby police officer arrived and found defendant struggling with the victim. The officer described defendant’s conduct as follows: 1 ‘ With one hand he was holding the victim’s hand up and the other hand he was striking behind the head and also groping through the victim’s pockets.” As the officer disengaged defendant from the victim, he heard “what sounded like change or some metal objects dropping on the ground.” Search of the area disclosed $3.00 in currency and 81 cents in change — the amount which defendant was charged with taking.

After defendant’s arrest, and after he had been taken to the police station, the arresting officer and his partner inter

[861]

rogated the defendant. The officer’s testimony as to the conversation was as follows:

11Q. Can you tell us what he said and what you said ? A. I asked the defendant about it and he stated to me that he knew the victim had approximately $243 on him and that he knew he couldn’t let a chance like this slide by and he was willing to take the chance and the risk that was prevailed upon him at this time, but he wouldn’t let it pass.

1 ‘ Q. Say anything about police at that time ? A. He stated he didn’t care whether the cops came around or not. He just couldn’t let that chance slide by.

“Q. Is that the sum and substance of the conversation ? A. It was. ’ ’

Defendant testified that he had had considerable to drink and remembered nothing of the evening after he left a bar until he awoke the next morning in jail. He testified that he had no remembrance of the victim, of his arrest, or of any conversation with the officers.

People v. Shawver

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief