People v. Waldron

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1960 No. Crim. 3063Published

Before: Van Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the robbery conviction, holding that while the trial court erred in giving a general intent instruction in a specific intent crime, the error was not prejudicial given the strong evidence of guilt. Additionally, the court held that claims of error regarding the display of a wound and prosecutorial misconduct were waived by the failure to object at trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for robbery rather than theft.
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on general criminal intent in a case requiring specific intent.
Whether the failure to object at trial precludes appellate review of the display of a wound and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In this case we have concluded from a review of the entire record that the case is not one where it can be said to have been probable that a different result would have been arrived at by the jury had the general intent instruction not been given.”

“The failure to object constitutes a waiver and the claim of error cannot now be raised on appeal.”

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction based upon a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of robbery of the first degree.

On September 29, 1959, a Mr. Jack Humphrey was drinking beer in a bar in Stockton. Appellant entered, engaged him in conversation and they drank together. Appellant asked Humphrey if he would be interested in a woman and was told that he would not. They went to a second bar where appellant sent a woman to Humphrey who rejected her. Humphrey then left and went to a third bar. Later he went out to the street where he was met by appellant and a companion. There appellant repeated his offer concerning a woman. Humphrey again refused, whereupon appellant grabbed him and in the scuffle took his wallet. There were witnesses who said that during this encounter appellant struck Humphrey so hard he was driven back against a car parked against the curb; that during the encounter appellant drew a knife from his pocket, pinned Humphrey’s left arm behind him, and stabbed him. There was testimony also that appellant took Humphrey’s wallet from his pocket and threw it to his companion, remarking, “Here it is. Get away from me.” After getting the wallet appellant’s companion fled. On being stabbed, Humphrey fell to the ground. When he attempted to arise appellant kicked him down again. The police arrived. Appellant put the knife in his pocket and yelled, “Search me, I’ve not got a knife, I haven’t got a wallet. You are against me because I’m colored and you’re all white.” Appellant then ran and as he fled again drew his knife. He was pursued by police and arrested. The knife was removed from his pocket and when removed the blade was opened. There was fresh human blood on it. Humphrey’s wallet and its contents, approximating sixty to seventy dollars in money, were never returned to him.

Appellant testified at the trial and, while admitting that he had met Humphrey at the bar earlier in the evening, asserted it was Humphrey who opened the conversation concerning a woman. He said that later the two men got into an argument

[45]

on that subject; that Humphrey hit appellant, whereupon a fight ensued. He denied stabbing Humphrey, but on cross-examination said he might have done so since he had a knife and, when he fought, he fought to win.

People v. Waldron

AI Brief

VAN DYKE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief