People v. Tallent

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 1948 No. Crim. 662Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of armed robbery, as the defendant's claim of duress was a question of fact for the jury and the accomplice's testimony was sufficiently corroborated. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant was liable as a principal for armed robbery regardless of whether he personally held the weapon.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction for robbery.
Whether the defendant's participation in the robbery was voluntary or the result of duress.
Whether the accomplice's testimony was sufficiently corroborated under Penal Code section 1111.
Whether the defendant could be convicted of armed robbery if he did not personally hold the weapon.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of whether the appellant was forced into his admitted acts through his fear of Dover and because of threats made by him, or whether he voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime was purely one of fact for the jury”

“The accomplice was thoroughly corroborated by appellant’s own admissions”

“Each was a principal in this act of armed robbery and the fact that the appellant was not the one who actually held the gun is immaterial.”

[159]

BARNARD, P. J.

The appellant and one Dover were jointly charged with the crime of robbery in that on February 29,1948, they held up a cocktail lounge in San Bernardino, taking about $300 from the bartender. It was further charged that at the time of the commission of the offense they were armed with a deadly weapon. Dover pleaded guilty and the appellant pleaded not guilty. The appellant was ably represented by counsel at the trial. A jury found him guilty and also found that he was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the robbery. He was sentenced to imprisonment, and he appeals from an order denying a new trial and from the judgment.

With one exception, there is little or no dispute as to the main facts surrounding the commission of this robbery and the events of the next few days. Briefly stated, it appears that the appellant and Dover first met on February 27 at “Knobby’s Café” in Ontario; that they again met at the same place on February 29; that they then proceeded in appellant’s automobile to another café near Ontario; that Dover there told the appellant how he had robbed slot machines and showed him a loaded gun he was carrying; that while returning to Ontario Dover told the appellant he was going to pull two jobs that night; and that they returned to Knobby’s Café where they had several “beers.” Later that night they drove in appellant’s car to San Bernardino, first stopping at the cocktail lounge in question. They then went to another café and later returned to the cocktail lounge, after agreeing to hold it up. After drinking two or three beers Dover sent the appellant outside to get the car ready. When he returned, in five or ten minutes, he locked the door of the café and stood guard there while Dover pulled out his gun and removed the money from the cash register while holding everyone at gun point. They then drove rapidly away, returning to Ontario.

They were together most of the time for the next four days at Dover’s residence and at Knobby’s Café. They divided the proceeds of the robbery although the appellant contends he received only $50, and that this was later taken from him. Two or three nights later they returned to San Bernardino where they were stopped for driving the car in a weaving fashion. The officer admonished them and directed them to go home, which they did. About that time the appellant heard Dover and his wife planning to leave because the police were after them. On March 4, the appellant spent most of the day

People v. Tallent

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief