People v. Gonzales

CURTIS, J.

The defendant was found guilty

of

grand larceny in the theft of a Chevrolet automobile of the value of five hundred dollars, and appeals from the judgment.

At the trial the arresting officer testified that he took from the person of the defendant at the time of his arrest a pistol, a policeman’s billy, a flashlight and a black silk sock with the foot cut off. These articles were admitted in evidence without any objection on the part of the defendant. Over the objection of the defendant, however, the officer further testified that the silk sock was an instrument of crime and was used as a mask by yeggmen and stick-up men. He demonstrated to the jury the manner in.which the sock was used as a mask, by drawing it over his head, covering his face and eyes. As thus drawn over his head, it concealed his features, but at the same time did not obscure his vision, but permitted him to look through it and see objects in the courtroom. It is contended by defendant that this testimony was irrelevant as to any issue in the case, and that its introduction greatly prejudiced the defendant in the eyes of the jury. The testimony of the officer as to the purpose to which the black silk cloth could be put by persons engaged in the commission of crime in no way tended to prove the charge against the defendant. At the trial it was not contended

[648]

that the defendant wore any mask or in any way endeavored to conceal his features, or made any attempt to escape or elude the officer at any time, either before or after his arrest. The testimony, therefore, as to the purposes to which the cloth might be used, shed no light upon the question as to whether the defendant was guilty or not of the theft of the automobile. It was, therefore, irrelevant as to any of the issues involved in the case and it was error to admit the same at the trial of the defendant. This testimony would naturally damage the defendant in the estimation of the jury. They would likely conclude that a person in the possession of such an article might in all probability be engaged in the commission of the crimes for which it could be used, and, therefore, they would more readily find him guilty of the crime charged.

It has been held that evidence tending to show the possession by the defendant, at the time of his arrest, of various poisons, none of which had any connection with the crime with which the defendant was charged, was inadmissible. The same ruling was had regarding evidence of the possession by the defendant of obscene letters and writings. Such evidence was held to be “very prejudicial to defendant, as it tended to show her to be a most depraved and vicious woman.”