People v. Watson

California Court of Appeal Nov 22, 1939 No. Crim. 3268Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for grand theft, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that any trial court errors regarding evidentiary rulings, continuances, or motions for a new trial were either non-prejudicial or immaterial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction for grand theft.
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting testimony regarding the complaining witness's identification of the defendant via photograph.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a continuance to produce a witness regarding the defendant's clothing at the time of arrest.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding the defendant's clothing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Even though such evidence was inadmissible, it clearly has not resulted in prejudice to defendant, in view of his positive identification by the complaining witness”

“The judgment and order appealed from are and each is affirmed.”

McCOMB, J. —

From a judgment of conviction of grand theft after trial, before a jury, defendant appeals. There is also an appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the People (respondent), the essential facts are:

January 6, 1939, the complaining witness, Virgie James, and an unidentified colored woman were walking on Seventh Street in the city of Los Angeles, when defendant, carrying a wallet stuffed full of something which appeared to be money, came across the street into the presence of the women. The woman accompanying the complaining witness thereupon stated to him, “Go on, Mister, go on, I saw you pick it up, we saw you pick it up.” Defendant then stated in substance that they all saw him pick it up but that he did not steal it. He then stated to the two women that he would divide the money with them but that it would be necessary for them to put up some money to show good faith. The complaining witness thereafter drew $900 from the bank and turned it over to the defendant as evidence of her good faith. She did not see the defendant thereafter until he was arrested nor did she receive a return of the money or any portion thereof or any part of the contents of the wallet.

[589]

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

First: The evidence is insufficient do sustain the judgment.

Second: The trial court committed prejudicial error in overruling defendant’s objections in the following examination:

“Q. Did you take her someplace to see a photograph?

“A. No. She came into the Bunco Detail Office, Boom 38, City Hall.

“Q. What occurred there?

“MBS. BOOT: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and self-serving.

“THE COUBT: The objection is overruled. You opened the gate yourself as to that identification; I did not.

“MB. HAMMON: Maybe I can limit it.

“Q. Did you have on that occasion, or somebody have on that occasion, a group of photographs of people among which was the photograph of this defendant?

People v. Watson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief