People v. Caberera

California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 1930 No. Docket No. 1110.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon is sufficient despite omitting the victim's name or weapon description, and that the failure to define 'deadly weapon' for the jury was not prejudicial error.

Issues

Whether a verdict of 'guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon' is insufficient for failing to name the victim or describe the weapon.
Whether the definition of 'deadly weapon' in Penal Code section 1168 applies to the crime of assault with a deadly weapon under section 245.
Whether the trial court's failure to define 'deadly weapon' for the jury constituted prejudicial error.
Whether cross-examination of character witnesses regarding prior acts of violence constituted prejudicial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant waived any objection to the form of the verdict by his failure to object thereto at the time it was returned.”

“It is clear that section 1168 does not purport to define “deadly weapon” in the sense in which those words are used in section 245 of the Penal Code”

“it is a matter of common knowledge that a knife, when used as an instrument with which to stab or cut a human being, is a deadly weapon.”

FINCH, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to murder B. Poledo. The jury returned a verdict reading as follows:

“We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find the defendant, Luz Caberera . . . guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon. ’

The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin. This is an appeal from the judgment.

Appellant contends that the verdict is insufficient because it does not give the name of the person assaulted, or describe the weapon used by him. The objection is without merit.

(People

Gayle,

202 Cal. 159, 163 [259 Pac. 750]

; People

Jochinsky,

106 Cal. 638, 642 [39 Pac. 1077];

People

Cecil,

72 Cal. App. 565, 568 [237 Pac. 568];

People

Somsky,

46 Cal. App. 377, 378 [189 Pac. 456].) The defendant waived any objection to the form of the verdict by his failure to object thereto at the time it was returned.

[416]

(People

Gayle, supra; People

Chiappelone,

90 Cal. App. 472 [265 Pac. 976];

People v. Caberera

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief