People v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal Apr 3, 1931 No. Docket No. 209.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the burglary conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's statements, as there is no requirement to warn a defendant of their rights before admitting non-confessional statements. Furthermore, the court held that objections to evidence not raised with precision at trial are waived on appeal.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of burglary in the second degree.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's statements without prior warnings regarding his rights.
Whether the defendant waived his objections to the admissibility of evidence by failing to specify the correct grounds at trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that the finger-marks of appellant were found on a dusty suitcase on the ceiling of a show window directly beneath the hole cut in the ceiling of the store through which the entry was made by the burglar sufficiently identifies appellant”

“It is not necessary to warn a defendant that any statements made by him might be used against him.”

“It is a general rule that an appellate court will not consider objections to the admission of evidence, unless the precise ground of objection was clearly specified in the trial court.”

MARKS, J.

Appellant was accused of the crime of burglary in the second degree by an information filed in the Superior Court of Imperial County. He entered a plea of not guilty, but after a trial by jury was found guilty as charged. He prosecuted this appeal from the judgment pronounced upon him.

The evidence shows that a store in the city of Brawley in Imperial County belonging to a man named Samaba was entered and burglarized some time between the closing hour on the evening of Saturday, August 16, 1930, and its opening hour on the morning of Monday, August 18, 1930. When the store was opened on this latter date the clerk in charge discovered that a considerable quantity of merchandise had been removed. A hole had been cut in the tin ceiling of the storeroom over a show window. There were a number of suitcases piled on top of this show window,

[206]

which, prior to August 16th, had not been touched or disturbed for a considerable time and upon which had accumulated a quantity of dust. These suitcases had been disturbed by the person making the entry and an examination of them showed finger-marks on one of them. These finger-marks were photographed and compared with the finger-prints of appellant. They were found to be identical and several expert witnesses testified that the fingermarks on the suitcase had been made by appellant.

When appellant was arrested and taken to the police station in Brawley, where his finger-prints were taken and compared with the finger-marks on the suitcase, he was questioned by the arresting officer concerning his connection with the burglary. He denied committing it or having any connection with it but admitted that some time during the night on August 16th he was employed by a' man named Gonzales to transport Gonzales and' some bundles from Brawley to Calexico. Appellant strenuously objected to the admissibility of this evidence upon the ground “that there is no proper foundation at the time made, to-wit, that this testimony has not shown that any member of the police department of the city of Brawley who was present advised the defendant of his rights, to-wit, that he did not need to answer any question if he did not see fit and if he did answer any questions, that might be used against him”. This objection and others to the same effect were overruled. Appellant complains of these rulings of the trial court and assigns them as error.

People v. Ramirez

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief