People v. Ornelas

California Court of Appeal Nov 20, 1936 No. Crim. 336Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for assault, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the identification, that an erroneous jury instruction on flight was not prejudicial, and that evidence of the victim's injuries was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the identity of the defendant as the assailant.
Whether the trial court's instruction on flight constituted prejudicial error.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to strike medical testimony regarding the victim's injuries.
Whether the district attorney committed prejudicial misconduct by attempting to introduce inadmissible evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury had a right to, and did, believe his testimony, and the same is amply sufficient to sustain the implied finding.”

“However, there being no evidence of flight, the instruction could not have misled the jury and we are unable to see how it was prejudicial.”

“Such facts are a part of the res gestae, and have an effect on the question of whether the means used were of a kind likely to produce great bodily injury.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, alleged to have been committed by striking one M. A. Patterson about the head and body with an iron bar. The jury found him guilty and he appeals from the judgment of conviction and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The ease arose out of acts occurring in an orange grove in Orange County at a time when a strike was in progress. Patterson testified that he was in charge of the packing house for an orange association; that on the day in question he was

[610]

acting as a guard while a crew from the packing house was picking oranges on a certain ranch; that several cars drove up and a large group of men entered the grove; that as the men approached him he fired two shots in the air and the remaining four shots into the ground; that five or six of the men in the party were approaching him from various directions ; that they were armed with sticks, clubs and irons; that he directed them not to come any further; that they kept on coming and he hit two of them over the head with his empty revolver; that immediately thereafter he turned his head and saw the defendant swinging at him with an iron bar; that this was the first he had “noticed particularly this gentleman”; that he was then hit over the head and became unconscious; and that “I recognized the defendant as he swung and hit me over the head.” On cross-examination he testified “I didn’t recognize, but I remembered him from the time he hit me. ’ ’

It is first contended that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the identity of the appellant as the one who assaulted Patterson. It is argued that Patterson’s identification cannot be accepted because he had but a fleeting glance of his assailant at a time when he was beset by several men, and because his testimony is unworthy of belief since he testified that the appellant was brought to his room in the hospital “some nine or ten days after” the day he was injured, whereas other witnesses testified that this occurred five days after that time. Patterson testified positively that the appellant was the man who struck him with the iron bar. The jury had a right to, and did, believe his testimony, and the same is amply sufficient to sustain the implied finding.

People v. Ornelas

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief