People v. Reed

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1962 No. Crim. 1837Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's robbery conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, the search and seizure of evidence lawful, and the defendant's claims of trial error meritless.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for first-degree robbery.
Whether the discovery of a rope on the defendant's property constituted an unlawful search and seizure.
Whether the defendant was properly impeached by evidence of a prior felony conviction.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The inconsistencies of these witnesses were not of such a nature as to destroy the credibility of the rest of their testimony as a matter of law.”

“Here, the officer discovered the rope without any search and the evidence was properly received.”

“It was proper impeachment to show that defendant had a prior felony conviction and the nature of the offense.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.—

Defendant Ike Reed (whose true name is Isaiah Reed) was found guilty of robbery in the first degree, and he appeals from the judgment of conviction.

The victim of the robbery, Lucy Mae Cunningham, was walking to her home in the City of Brawley at approximately 8 :45 p. m. on January 20, 1962, when she heard a noise behind her and felt a rope around her neck. The person behind her took hold of her right arm and started pushing her across the road. Her assailant said that if she screamed she would be killed. He also asked Mrs. Cunningham where she had been and she told him that she had been visiting some friends in their home.

Mrs. Cunningham recognized the voice of her assailant as that of defendant Reed, whom she had known for about two

[82]

months. She had seen Reed earlier that day when her husband paid a debt he had owed to Reed. Mrs. Cunningham said, “Ike Reed” aloud and defendant answered, “Yes.” She said, “I thought you were a friend of ours” and defendant replied, “Well, you don’t know me very well.”

Defendant asked Mrs. Cunningham if she had any money and she offered to give him four dollars which she had with her. He told her to give him the money and she did so. During this time, defendant had a cloth over his face and he kept the rope on Mrs. Cunningham’s neck.

Defendant then released Mrs. Cunningham and she ran home. Her husband took her to the police station where she showed the rope marks on her neck to Officers Edwards and Santos and told them what had happened.

About 6 a. m. the next morning, Officer Edwards went to defendant’s home. While proceeding from the road to defendant’s house, the officer noticed the end of a rope protruding from under a boardwalk leading to the front door. The rope was new and not wet or soiled, although it had been misting the night before and the ground where it was found was muddy. Mrs. Cunningham said that this rope was similar to the one which was put around her neck.

Defendant was arrested. He told the officers that he had been released from the Brawley Jail the day before and that he had been in the company of Eugene Minter from the time of his release until about 2 or 3 a. m. the next morning.

People v. Reed

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief