People v. Lionberger

California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 1937 No. Crim. 340Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that trial errors regarding the exclusion of cross-examination and judicial comments on the evidence were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the jury remained the exclusive judge of the facts.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by sustaining an objection to cross-examination regarding the prosecuting witness's sobriety.
Whether the trial court erred in its comments to the jury regarding the evidence of the theft.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to submit a verdict form for attempted grand theft.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although this ruling was erroneous, no attempt is made to show that any prejudice resulted therefrom.”

“The court twice instructed the jurors that they were the exclusive judges of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses”

“Under the evidence submitted the appellant was either guilty of grand theft or he was not guilty.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendants were accused of the crime of grand theft and convicted by a jury. From the judgment which followed the defendant Lionberger has appealed.

It appears from the evidence that on the night of September 19, 1936, one Alvah Wing parked his automobile near a dance hall known as “Bob’s Place” in the city of Ontario. Shortly after 1 o’clock A. M. on that night Wing left the dance hall and found that his car was gone. He immediately reported the loss at the police station and a few minutes later two police officers and another man, who were driving around in a police radio car, came across Wing’s car on a side street about four and one-half blocks from the dance hall. Wing’s car was stopped opposite a vacant lot with its engine running and its lights on and as the police car came up the other car made a quick movement forward for about two feet, after which the engine stopped, apparently because the driver had stalled his engine in attempting to start too quickly. Just as the officers got out of the police car the defendant Morris came running up. One of the officers asked Morris where he got Wing’s car and he replied: “I did not steal no car.” The appellant, who was sitting behind the wheel of Wing’s car, was taken to the police station, where he told the officers that he “got it at Bob’s Place” and that “We were going to Oklahoma.’’ Morris ran away before the officers took the appellant to the police station. He was apprehended the next day, when he told the officer that he and the appellant had come from Bob’s Place, that they

[286]

found the automobile and got into it, that the appellant said they would take the ear and go to Oklahoma, and that he tried to prevent the appellant from doing this. At the trial the appellant testified that when he got into Wing’s ear he thought it was a ear belonging to a friend of his named Fletcher.

The first point raised is that the court committed prejudicial error in refusing to permit counsel for the appellant, upon cross-examination, to ask the prosecuting witness whether he was drunk or sober when he left his car outside of Bob’s Place. Such a question was asked and an objection sustained. The respondent concedes that this was error, citing

People

People v. Lionberger

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief