People v. Redding

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of robbery and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The fact that a robbery occurred, as charged in the information filed against defendant, is not disputed; but the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the identification of defendant as the man who committed the crime, as well as the effect of certain evidence admitted over the objection of defendant, are the material questions presented for the consideration of this court.

With reference to the first question, the record discloses the fact that on the trial of the action the man who was robbed was unable to, and did not, identify defendant as the man who committed the robbery. However, the identity of defendant as the robber was positively established by the) testimony of a boy of the age of thirteen years, who was present at the time the robbery was committed. The boy’s testimony was impeached, not only by the fact that in his testimony given at the preliminary examination of defendant before the committing magistrate he failed to identify defendant, but as well by the testimony of two witnesses to the effect that prior to giving his testimony on the trial of the action in the superior court the boy had been approached by two police detectives who, by the power of suggestion, if not by a more sinister influence, had induced the boy to change his testimony given

[171]

at the preliminary examination of defendant, so that on the trial of the action in the superior court he testified to what amounted to an identification of defendant as the man who committed the crime. However, in rebuttal, each of the police detectives denied that they or either of them had been guilty of the use of any improper or unethical methods with reference to the testimony given by the boy.

In the main the defense consisted of a denial by defendant of his guilt, together with the testimony of six other witnesses to the effect that, not only including the exact time when the robbery was committed, but for several hours preceding such time and for about an hour thereafter, they were and each of them was in the presence of defendant at a place located approximately eight miles from the scene of the robbery. If, notwithstanding the weakness of the evidence upon which the verdict of guilt of defendant depended, resting as it did upon what ordinarily might be assumed as being great infirmities, the jury chose to adopt it as a reflection of the truth of the situation, including the identity of defendant as the robber, the result, as expressed in its verdict, is beyond the reach of successful attack on appeal. The evidence, though in itself weak and perhaps unsatisfactory to the judicial mind, nevertheless was legally sufficient to sustain the verdict.