People v. Hatfield

California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 1969 No. Crim. 7439Published

Before: Caldecott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants' failure to object to lineup identification evidence at trial precluded them from raising the issue on appeal, and further determined that the defendants were provided with effective assistance of counsel at the lineup.

Issues

Whether the failure to object to lineup identification evidence at trial precludes raising the issue on appeal.
Whether the defendants were denied effective assistance of counsel at the lineup.
Whether forced participation in a lineup violates the privilege against self-incrimination.
Whether testimony regarding a witness's extrajudicial description of the robbers is admissible as hearsay.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court held that such failure to object by counsel precludes raising the issue of exclusion of such evidence for the first time on appeal.”

CALDECOTT, J.

Defendants each appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on jury verdict finding them guilty of robbery, a violation of Penal Code section 211.

On December 9, 1967, Miss Ingeborg Shewerdge was working in a bakery in San Francisco. At about 7 :30 p.m. appellants Hatfield and Jack entered the store; appellant Jack stood across the counter from Miss Shewerdge and engaged her in conversation concerning doughnuts for a couple of minutes, while appellant Hatfield stood against the end of the counter. Appellant Jack then ordered three doughnuts, and Miss Shewerdge turned around to put them in a bag. As she started to turn back she discovered appellant Hatfield behind her on her side of the counter; she gave a short scream and was about to tell him to get out when she heard a click and looked down to see a gun in appellant Hatfield’s hand which was aimed at her. Hatfield told her to open the cash register and Miss Shewerdge complied.

Mrs. Caruso, another sales clerk, returned from her dinner, and was ordered by Hatfield to join them at the cash register. Hatfield then ordered Miss Shewerdge to hand him the money from the register, and as she did so Jack was also taking money out of the register by leaning over the counter from the other side. In all they took $170.83 from the register. Appellants then left the premises.

Miss Shewerdge telephoned the police and gave them a description of the two robbers. About 20 minutes later the two appellants were arrested by the police while attempting to board a bus.

The appellants were searched and a gun similar to the one used in the robbery was found on appellant Hatfield. A further search of appellants revealed that between them they were carrying $171.78 in cash.

A lineup was held on the Monday following the Saturday

[747]

evening robbery and arrest. Before the lineup appellants were informed that they had a right to have an attorney present at the lineup, and that if they had no attorney an attorney would be provided. An attorney from the public defender’s office was contacted and was present at the lineup to protect appellants’ rights. Before the lineup Miss Shewerdge was told she would see six men and that if she saw one who was involved in the robbery she should mark his number on the card provided her. During the lineup she had no further conversation with anyone, and she marked appellants’ numbers on her card. Although Jack was the tallest man in the lineup, and objected to this fact, Miss Shewerdge recognized him as soon as he walked on the stage, and stated at trial that her selection of him was not influenced by the fact that there was nobody taller than he in the lineup. When asked after the lineup if there was any question in her mind as to her selections, Miss Shewerdge replied ‘ ‘ Absolutely not. ’ ’

People v. Hatfield

AI Brief

CALDECOTT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief