People v. Franco

THE COURT.

The defendant, a southern European, and unable to speak the English language, was charged by information with the crime of having murdered one Antone Andrade on January 20, 1931. The defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. As provided by law the defendant was first tried on the issue made by his plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, without recommenda

[579]

tion. The same jury subsequently found the defendant sane. Under such circumstances the trial court imposed the penalty of death, as is made mandatory in such cases. Defendant subsequently perfected an appeal to this court. His counsel has not seen fit to file any brief on his behalf. Inasmuch as the extreme penalty of the law has been imposed on the defendant, the court of its own volition, without assistance from counsel, has thoroughly examined the entire record. Upon such examination it is apparent that the evidence is such as to support the verdict, and that no legal right of the defendant was invaded during the trial.

The evidence shows that on the day of the homicide the defendant, together with the deceased and four others, was engaged in pruning a vineyard on the Batacabe ranch, three miles from Morgan Hill, in Santa Clara County. During the lunch hour the deceased and one Salvadore Francho, nephew of the defendant, ate their lunch while seated on the running-board of Salvadore’s automobile, a Dodge truck, parked on a narrow roadway leading into the ranch. Defendant’s automobile was parked on the other side of the road, and defendant ate his lunch, alone, in his car. During the lunch hour Andrade, the deceased, sharpened his pruning shears, one large pair and a smaller pair, and laid the same upon the running-board beside him. According to Salvadore, a witness called by both sides, the following then occurred: After defendant had finished his lunch he crossed the roadway to where Andrade and Salvadore were sitting and engaged them in conversation. The witness testified that defendant first asked Andrade why he would not lend him the sum of five dollars. Andrade replied that he could not lend it to him because he did not have it. The defendant replied that Andrade did have that sum but would not lend it to him. The parties proceeded to argue concerning this matter and Salvadore sought to interfere. He was told by defendant to keep quiet. Defendant then asked Andrade why he, Andrade, would not permit the defendant to board with him. Andrade replied that it made too much trouble. The defendant and Andrade then got into an argument on this point, during the course of which defendant stated that Andrade was just like all the other Spaniards at Morgan Hill; that they all treated him, the defendant, “like a dog”; that he,