People v. Olds

California Court of Appeal Oct 15, 1927 No. Docket No. 1522.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the testimony of an accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by eye-witnesses, that the court is presumed to have properly admonished the jury absent evidence to the contrary, and that the failure to instruct on accomplice testimony is not error when no such instruction was requested.

Issues

Whether the testimony of an accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence.
Whether the trial court's failure to record the specific form of jury admonitions constitutes reversible error.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of an accomplice and the necessity of corroboration absent a request by the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of a showing to the contrary we will presume that the court did its duty, and gave the proper admonition at each adjournment.”

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of sex perversion as defined and denounced in section 288a of the Penal Code.

The first point presented by appellant for a reversal of the judgment is that, because the principal witness for the prosecution was an accomplice of defendant, a conviction could not have been had on testimony of such accomplice unless it was corroborated by such other evidence as tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. (Sec. 1111, Pen. Code.) But assuming (without deciding) that in the circumstances of this case, as shown by the evidence, the principal witness was an accomplice of defendant, it clearly appears that the testimony given by such witness was fully corroborated by three eye-witnesses to the com

[132]

mission of the offense. If, as claimed by appellant, the testimony given by such corroborating witnesses is unbelievable, it is well established that the credibility to be attached to such evidence was a matter which lay exclusively within the province of the jury; and, hence, the question as to whether such witnesses were truthful in their several statements is one which may not be decided by this court.

Appellant also contends that the record fails to show that at each of the several recesses or adjournments of the court the jury was admonished in accordance with the provisions of section 1122 of the Penal Code. With reference thereto, it is admitted that the record does show that the jury was “admonished”; but the specific complaint of appellant is that the record is silent as to the

form

of such admonition.

In the case of

People

Ye Foo,

4 Cal. App. 730, 738 [89 Pac. 450, 452], a question along similar lines was suggested by the appellant. The court said: “The record fails to show that the court admonished the jury at each adjournment, as required by section 1122 of the Penal Code, not to converse among themselves, nor with anyone else, on any subject connected with the trial, or to form or express any opinion thereon until the cause is finally submitted. In the absence of a showing to the contrary we will presume

People v. Olds

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief