People v. Ricci

California Court of Appeal Jan 6, 1966 No. Crim. 3842Published

Before: Friedman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's silence in the face of an accusatory statement was error, it was not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including a valid confession. Furthermore, the defendant's statement regarding tool ownership was admissible as it was not the product of a process of police interrogation.

Issues

Whether the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's silence in response to an accusatory statement violated the rule against using silence as an implied admission.
Whether the defendant's statement admitting ownership of tools was obtained in violation of the Dorado rule regarding police interrogation.
Whether the accidental reference to the defendant's parole officer by a witness constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The state Supreme Court has recently held that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from the silence of an arrested man in the face of an accusatory statement; that the accusatory statement and the defendant’s response are inadmissible in evidence”

“The error was not prejudicial, however. We have reviewed the record and find that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt (which included his valid confession) was complete and convincing.”

“Defendant’s statement was not produced by a process of police interrogation designed to elicit incriminating statements.”

FRIEDMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of burglary conviction. Defendant was tried before a jury.

About 10 p.m. October 7, 1964, the burglar alarm at the Shasta Laundry sounded. William McBride, the night watchman, went to the roof of the building to await arrival of the police. When the police arrived McBride tossed the keys of the building to them and reentered the building. He was walking down a hallway when he saw defendant, who was carrying a flashlight. McBride identified himself as the watchman and defendant turned and ran. McBride talked to the police, who searched the building and the roof. Searching the roof, Officer Link of the Sacramento Police Department found a bag of tools and a pair of gloves. Searching further, he found defendant in a water tank. The officer testified that he looked into the tank and saw defendant’s face “sticking up out of the water.” Officer Link took defendant into custody and brought him into the building. He testified that when McBride, the night watchman, saw defendant he stated: “That’s the man I saw in the hallway” and that defendant made no reply to that statement.

When defendant was brought to the squad car, Officer Link placed the tools on the floor of the car. He told defendant “I found your tools on the roof.” Defendant replied, “Yes, they are mine. I bought them at Sears today.’’

[235]

Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was booked. Twice the next day, October 8, he was interviewed by Detective Sergeant Mihanovich. On each of these occasions Mihanovich informed defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. During the second interview defendant signed a statement acknowledging that he had been advised of these rights. On the morning of October 9 defendant made an oral confession but refused to sign a written confession. At the trial Sergeant Mihanovich testified to the confession. The other prosecution witnesses were McBride, the night watchman, who made a courtroom identification of defendant, and Officer Link.

Defendant took the stand to testify that a friend’s mother living in the vicinity had been bothered by prowlers so he went on the roof of the laundry to watch for prowlers. He denied being in the building. He denied making any confession to the detective sergeant. He denied any criminal intent. He also denied admitting that the tools were his.

People v. Ricci

AI Brief

FRIEDMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief