People v. Demera

California Court of Appeal Oct 15, 1923 No. Crim. No. 1106.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was sufficient independent circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of accomplices and connect the defendant to the crime, and that any trial court errors did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support a conviction based on accomplice testimony.
Whether the trial court erred in submitting the question of whether a witness was an accomplice to the jury.
Whether the conduct of the special prosecutor and trial judge resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the rule is well established that where there is any conflict or where the facts are susceptible of different inferences the question as to whether the party is an accomplice must be left to the jury.”

“All this evidence is circumstantial and is of value only when followed by the inferences which the jury might draw as tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime.”

“Though the evidence is meager, we think it is sufficient to meet the demands of the statute.”

NOURSE, J.

Defendant was convicted on an indictment charging the felony of burning his residence with the intent to defraud an insurance company.

The facts are that defendant owned a store in the city of Fresno, where he conducted a grocery business, and lived with his family in a house adjacent to and connecting with the store building and having a common wall. On the night of February 5th or the morning of February 6,1922, at about 1:45 o’clock A. M., his house was discovered to be on fire from a fire originating in the basement of the house. The defendant and his family had gone to Sanger at 11 o’clock A. M. of the fifth day of February, being a Sunday, to visit some friends in that town. They arrived there about noon and remained until about midnight or near 1 o’clock A. M. of February 6th, when they returned to Fresno and found their house on fire. The defendant, his wife, and two sons were immediately arrested and taken to headquarters, where they were interrogated concerning the origin of the fire and released about 5 A. M. of that morning. On the nineteenth day of April one Caiazza and one Guisto were arrested and charged with burning a house owned by one Holcomb. In the course of their trial it was shown that Caiazza, an insurance agent, had engaged Guisto to burn the home of Holcomb, in conspiracy with said Holcomb for the purpose of obtaining the insurance upon the premises, but that Holcomb had informed the police and fire authorities of the city of Fresno of the proposal and all subsequent actions were taken under their directions. The fire was discovered soon after it started and the two defendants, Caiazza and Guisto, were tried and convicted. (See

People

Caiazza,

61 Cal. App. 505 [215 Pac. 80].) When the arrest of Caiazza and Guisto was made the police officers went to the deposit box of Caiazza and procured his papers. Among them they found a receipt signed by one Tresea for the burning of the house of defendant in this case. Upon obtaining this information the defendant Demera was arrested and indicted. In two former trials the jury failed to agree. Upon the third he was found guilty.

[123]

On this appeal it is urged that there was no independent corroborating evidence of the testimony of the accomplices sufficient to justify the conviction. The argument is that Quisto, having confessedly been employed to assist Tresca in the actual burning of the building and having arranged with Tresca to meet with him at a particular hour of the night for that purpose, was an accomplice with .Tresca, although at the last moment he backed out, pleading that he was too sleepy to attend to the affair that evening.

People v. Demera

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief