People v. Aulisi

California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 1968 No. Crim. 14134Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that when a defendant denies a prior felony conviction, the trial court is required to read the information containing the prior offense allegations to the jury, and such impeachment does not violate constitutional rights.

Issues

Whether informing the jury of a defendant's prior felony conviction when the defendant denies the allegation violates the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Whether the trial court erred in reading the information containing prior conviction allegations to the jury before trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is thoroughly settled, however, that a defendant’s credibility may be impeached by questioning him as to convictions for prior felonies.”

“Although neither Penal Code, section 1025 nor section 1093 subdivision 1 in express words requires the non-admitted prior to be read to the jury before the trial begins, the clear implication of both sections is that it must be, and we so hold.”

ROTH, P. J.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of first degree robbery and was found to be armed. Prior convictions charged were found to be true. Upon the court’s own motion the finding that appellant was personally armed was stricken. Probation was denied, the appellant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law.

[151]

This appeal is from the judgment of conviction.

Mrs. Frances Tetter, owner of a liquor store in Los Angeles, testified that at approximately 3 :15 in the afternoon of November 20, 1966, two men, whom she identified as appellant and a Mr. Hannah, entered her store at the same time, Hannah carrying a paper bag. Hannah told her he had something to exchange, opened the bag, took out a. gun and pointed it at her, telling her to put the money from the cash register into the bag. Appellant at this time was standing inside the store near the cigar ease. He said to Hannah, “put the gun away.” Hannah put the gun into his pocket. Mrs. Tetter placed $25 in the bag. Both men hurried out of the store.

Mrs. Tetter identified appellant in court as one of the men who held her up on November 20.

Hannah testified for the prosecution and identified appellant as his companion. He stated his reason for testifying against appellant (“. . . why should I take and do all the time for the two of

usi”)

He testified there was no promise of an early parole or leniency, and that he had never discussed the testimony he was giving in court with anyone, although he had a “conversation”—(“Just walking by a person and saying ‘Hi’ would be having a conversation with somebody”) with a police officer regarding the case the day before the trial.

Appellant testified he was not near the liquor store on November 20, 1966; did not have any involvement with Hannah on that date, and did not own a gun. Further, he did not know Mr. Hannah but saw him in a restaurant on Alvarado Street and gave him 50 cents on one occasion, and $1 on another, because Hannah was hungry. He said also that he had had a fight with Hannah over a woman.

Appellant admitted he was not working on November 20, 1966, but stated that prior to that date he had been employed as a machine operator.

People v. Aulisi

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief