People v. Falls

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1957 No. Crim. 1134Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and concluding that no prejudicial error occurred during the trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the identification of the defendant and the conviction.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing cross-examination regarding the defendant's prior conviction.
Whether the admission of evidence concerning the defendant's purchases after the offense constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mr. Wood had had an ample opportunity to get a good look at the appellant, any question about the identification was for the jury, and the evidence is entirely sufficient to support the conviction.”

“The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, a ball peen'hammer. He was also charged with a prior conviction for burglary. He admitted the prior conviction and a jury found him guilty of robbery, and also found that at the time of the commission of the offense he was armed with a deadly weapon. He has appealed from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

During the early morning hours of December 22, 1955, Earl Wood was working alone as an attendant at a service station in San Bernardino. About 3 a. m. he counted the money in the cash register and found there about $55 in bills and four or five dollars in coin. Between 3:30 and 3:45 a. m. the defendant approached Mr. Wood carrying a 5-gallon gasoline can, blue in color, with a white stripe near the bottom. He asked for some gasoline and Wood filled the can. As he was hanging up the hose he was struck on his head and rendered unconscious. He next recalled being helped into the station house by the defendant who told him to open the cash register, which he did. The defendant removed the money from the till, and was then holding a ball peen hammer in his hand. The hammer did not belong to the service station. The defendant then tore out the telephone wires and told Wood to go to the men’s room and stay there. Wood saw the defendant walking away carrying the gasoline can, and asked a passerby to call the sheriff’s office. Later, Wood served a customer, and found there was no money left in the cash register. Wood was treated at a hospital for injuries to his head, his face showed bruises and cuts, and he was bleeding from his mouth. At the time of the trial he still had a scar above his right ear.

About 8:30 a. m. on December 23 a deputy sheriff asked the defendant why he did not admit this robbery, and the defendant stated: “I guess we will have to do it the hard way, I will go to Court and if the jury finds me guilty it is the truth and if they do not you will have to let me go.” The defendant testified that he did not strike Mr. Wood; that he was not in this filling station at the time in question; and that from 2 a. m. to 7 a. m. on December 22 he was at his sister’s house in Fontana playing poker with several other men. In rebuttal it was shown that his sister had left her

[556]

People v. Falls

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief