People v. Sutter

NOURSE, P. J.

The defendants were tried with a jury upon an information charging robbery. A verdict for the People resulted and the defendants have appealed from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

At about 10 o’clock on the evening of November 11, 1931, the defendants, in company with Raymond Hill, entered a bootlegging “joint” in the city and county of San Francisco, and, .after engaging in the showing of card tricks with one Romagnolo, who was in charge of the place, Sutter and Trott each drew a pistol and forced Romagnolo to deliver the contents of the cash register—about $40—and an equal amount of money was taken from the person of Romagnolo. The three then locked Romagnolo and his

[30]

helper in a rear room and left the premises. Within the hour they were captured by the police while they stood at a street corner a few blocks from the scene of the holdup. At the time of his arrest Trott held in his hand the gun used by him in the holdup and Romagnolo’s purse was found in his pocket. Bach of the three had some of the money on his person, and the other gun, two masks, and the remainder of the money taken was found in a search of defendants’ room. These articles were shown to defendants at the police station and both admitted their part in the robbery.

On this appeal three points are raised which we will consider in order. It is urged that the district attorney’s interrogation of the jurors was prejudicial misconduct when he asked if they would be influenced by the fact that upon a former trial of these defendants the jury had voted eight to four for conviction. Objections having been made to this line of inquiry the trial court read from the decision in

People

v.

Carmichael,

198 Cal. 534, 547 [246 Pac. 62], and, with extreme care, warned the jurors that they had no evidence as to how the previous jury stood, that they should disregard all remarks of counsel in that matter, that, if they were unable to do so, or if they had any other information on the subject, they should so inform him and be discharged. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the rights of the defendants were prejudiced by this occurrence.