People v. Barnnovich

LENNON, P. J.

The defendant, George Barnnovich, was jointly charged with George Maracich and Lawrence Maracieh, in an information filed in the superior court of Contra Costa county, with the crime of felony as defined in section 601 of the Penal Code.

The defendant Barnnovich elected to be tried separately, and upon his trial he was convicted and sentenced to the state prison for life. The appeal is from the judgment and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The codefendants, George and Lawrence Maracich, were competent witnesses for the people, and were rightfully called by the district attorney to testify to any material facts within their knowledge. Before giving their testimony both these codefendants were in turn by the court cautioned as to their rights, and then admonished that any testimony which they saw fit to give could and might subsequently be employed against them. They could not have been compelled to testify, and, when called as witnesses, it was their privilege under

[430]

the law to refuse to testify if their testimony would have tended to subject them to punishment for a felony. This, however, did not concern the defendant at the bar, and it was a matter over which he had no control. (People v.

Rodundo,

44 Cal. 530.)

The objection made at the trial to the testimony of the co-defendant Lawrence Maracich “upon the ground that he was ■an accomplice, and that the

corpus delicti

had not been sufficiently established to permit a codefendant testifying,” was properly overruled. The statutory rule that a conviction cannot be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice does not go to the admissibility, but only to the effect, of the evidence of the accomplice. (Pen. Code, sec. 1111;

People

v.

Grundell,

75 Cal. 305, [17 Pac. 214].) Notwithstanding a conviction cannot be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, the actual commission of the offense may be established by such testimony