People v. LaCrosse

California Court of Appeal Apr 1, 1935 No. Crim. 1832Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, that the defendant was not denied due process, that evidence of post-robbery conduct was admissible, and that the trial court properly rejected an argumentative jury instruction.

Issues

Did the trial court err in refusing to allow the defendant to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at the start of trial?
Was the defendant denied due process when the court did not enter a plea of insanity on his behalf at arraignment?
Was evidence of the defendant's post-robbery conduct and flight admissible?
Did the trial court err in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction regarding identification?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant had ample opportunity to enter the special plea if he had desired and no statute or rule of law denied that right if exercised within a reasonable time.”

“All the testimony objected to was offered for the purpose of showing the connection between the appellant and his accomplice and their efforts to flee from the seat of the crime. It was clearly admissible for that purpose.”

“The rest of the proposed instruction was purely argumentative and was properly rejected.”

NOURSE, P. J.

The defendant was tried before a jury on an information charging robbery and a prior conviction. He had refused to plead when arraigned, whereupon the trial court directed the clerk to enter a plea of not guilty. He later admitted the prior conviction, and on the trial was found guilty as charged in the information. He has appealed from the judgment on the verdict and from the order denying a new trial.

His first point is that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to add to his plea of not guilty a special plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The motion was made at the inception of the trial and after defendant had answered “ready”. The point is without merit. It was determined adversely to the contentions here made in

People

Hall,

220 Cal. 166, 170 [30 Pac. (2d) 23], and an appeal in that case to the Supreme Court of the United States was dismissed. (292 U. S. 614 [54 Sup. Ct. 869, 78 L. Ed. 1473].)

. The second point is that defendant was denied due process because, when he refused to plead on arraignment, the trial court should have added to the general plea of “not guilty” the special plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The point has less merit than the first. The defendant had ample opportunity to enter the special plea if he had desired and no statute or rule of law denied that right if exercised within a reasonable time. The defendant was arrested on July 27, 1934. He was arraigned and his

[698]

trial was set for September 24th by consent. The trial commenced on October 18th, at which time he asked leave to change his plea. He was represented by counsel when arraigned and at all subsequent proceedings. Thus there has been no denial of the constitutional guaranty of due process but merely a failure to use the due process provided for his benefit. In support of the point the appellant argues that section 1016 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional in that it declares that one who fails-to make the plea “shall be conclusively presumed to have been sane at the time of the commission of the offense charged”. The same question was decided adversely in

People v. LaCrosse

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief