People v. Valencia

SHAW, J.

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with the crime of robbery. He appeals from t'he judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The complaining witness, who is a Chinaman, fully identified the defendant as the man who, armed with a revolver, entered his room at about 2 o’clock a. m., October 11, 1914, shot him and by force took a certain sum of money from him. Against this evidence defendant sought to establish an

alibi.

Apparently the evidence in support thereof was not believed either by the jury or by the court which denied the motion for

[408]

a new trial. The evidence of the complaining witness was to the effect that he had met and talked with defendant on two or three previous occasions when he had been in the former’s place of business, and his identification of defendant as the man who robbed him was positive and unequivocal. On the occasion of the robbery there were lights in an adjoining room, separated from that occupied by the Chinaman by an open door, and defendant, calling him by name, demanded his money. Under these circumstances the testimony cannot, as defendant claims, be said to be inherently improbable. The defendant’s testimony as to the

alibi

was of a nature to east suspicion upon his story and the jury was clearly justified in disbelieving it.

Objection is made that the court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to the appointing of one T. J. Gentjee to act as interpreter. While counsel for defendant based his objection upon the ground that Gentjee was biased and prejudiced, not the slightest evidence was offered in support thereof. The propriety of calling an interpreter and the fitness of the person so called are matters for the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1884;

People

v.

Salas,

2 Cal. App. 537, [84 Pac. 295].) Not the slightest ground exists for complaint upon this score.