People v. Knoth

California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 1931 No. Docket No. 111.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony, that the defendant was properly impeached by his prior felony conviction, and that the failure to instruct the jury that the witness was an accomplice as a matter of law was not prejudicial error.

Issues

Whether the testimony of an accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Whether the defendant could be cross-examined regarding a prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes.
Whether the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that a witness was an accomplice as a matter of law constituted prejudicial error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is well settled that the testimony of an accomplice may be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.”

“The conduct of the accused may be examined for corroborating circumstances and if from all the circumstances of the case the guilt of the accused may be fairly inferred, the corroboration is sufficient.”

“The failure to give such an instruction, under the circumstances of this case, was held not prejudicial to the rights of the defendant”

MARKS, J.

By an information filed by the district attorney of Tulare County appellant was charged with the crime of burglary together with one prior conviction of a felony. He entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of burglary and a plea of guilty to the prior conviction. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of burglary in the second degree, and appellant prosecuted this" appeal.

An unoccupied house belonging to J. 0. Guill was located west of the town of Goshen in the county of Tulare. In it was a quantity of household furniture. E'. C. Featherstone was caretaker of the property and John V. Deniz was employed to pump water for the cattle on the place. All the doors and windows of the house were closed and the exterior doors boarded up on the evening of April 11, 1930. On that date Deniz was at the Guill house and had pumped the water for the cattle. After finishing his task, and as he crossed the road in front of the house on his way home, he noticed an automobile approaching, without its headlights illuminated. It was stopped by the gate to the Guill house. Two men alighted from it and proceeded to the rear of the house. He heard noises at the back door, then saw one of the men return to the automobile, take something from it and return to the rear of the house. He then secured his own automobile and picking up Featherstone and a boy named Wallace Schulz, brought them back to the Guill premises. Deniz then went to call the officers. Featherstone and Schulz saw O. J. Ward come around the house from the rear and approach his parked automobile carrying a bottle or pan of water. Ward told them he was filling the radiator of his car. About the same time Featherstone noticed a man running through a field and away from the house. Schulz followed the fleeing man; but as he was unable to overtake

[252]

him, fired some shots at him. Ward called to the man, saying, “Come on in, Charlie.” The fleeing man made good his escape.

An examination showed that the boards over the rear door of the Guill house had been torn loose, the door opened and some household effects and a patent toilet removed from the house and placed on the ground outside the door. An iron pinch-bar was found near the door.

During the month of August, 1930, appellant was arrested by the sheriff of Tulare County, in the city of Hanford. After he was confined in the Tulare County jail he made a voluntary statement to a deputy district attorney which was taken down in shorthand by a reporter. In this statement appellant said that he paid Ward two dollars to drive him from Visalia out in the country so that he might dispose of five gallons of wine which he had in his possession; that after he had disposed of the wine Ward stated to him that he wanted to look at a house which he intended to rent and drove to the Guill place; that Ward alighted from the car and went to the rear of the house, appellant remaining seated in the automobile; that after Ward had been gone several minutes appellant proceeded to the rear of the house and found Ward tearing boards from the door; that appellant told Ward not to do this, but that Ward made entry into the house and carried household goods and a patent toilet from the house to the yard; that about this time appellant heard an automobile drive up- and stop in front of the house; that appellant told Ward they had better go and then ran across the fields as fast as he could and escaped; that he went to the state of Montana where he remained for some time.

People v. Knoth

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief