People v. Summers

NOURSE, P. J.

The defendants were jointly tried on an indictment charging robbery. A verdict of guilty was returned against each defendant, and from the judgments

[251]

on the verdicts, and

from

the orders denying their motions for new trial, both defendants have appealed on the same typewritten record.

On April 17, 1929, the College Avenue Branch of the Oakland Bank was robbed of the sum of $10,133 by two men each of whom carried pistols which they displayed at the time. On June 14th of the same year the Dwight Way Branch of the Bank of America situated in the city of Berkeley was robbed under similar circumstances. Soon thereafter the defendants were arrested in an apartment in San Francsico, where a large part of the fruits of the second robbery was found. Immediately following their arrest the defendants were viewed in the city prisons of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland by a large number of persons who were either employees of these two banks or persons present at and witnesses of one of the robberies. The defendants were tried and convicted of the robbery of the Berkeley Bank and their convictions were sustained in

People

v.

Sampsell et al.,

104 Cal. App. 431 [286 Pac. 434]. As a result of that conviction, and of two prior convictions, the defendants have been confined in the state penitentiary at Folsom whence they prosecute this appeal

in propria personae.

It would serve no purpose to outline the facts of the case. That a robbery was committed is not disputed. The appellants merely urge that the evidence identifying them as the perpetrators is insufficient. Great stress is laid on the circumstances under which the various witnesses were led to identify the appellants and the charge is freely made that the police officers and the district attorney unduly influenced these witnesses in making their identification. We are not inclined to review the testimony of these witnesses in the manner urged by appellants, but we are content to say that we have read their testimony with the utmost care in view of the lack of representation of the appellants on this appeal and that the positive identification by at least six of these witnesses is sufficient to sustain the issue.