People v. Hayes

THE COURT.

A hearing was granted in this case, after decision by the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, in order to give full consideration to the contention of appellant Dulin that the verdict as to him was contrary to the evidence. Upon a careful examination of the whole record, we have reached the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. We therefore adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice

pro tern.

Archbald as the opinion of this court. It reads as follows:

[222]

"Appellant and Fred Hayes were jointly charged with the murder of Mickey Brno, by an information filed on February 23, 1933. Both were found guilty of murder in the first degree, with recommendation of life imprisonment. From the judgments of conviction entered on said verdict and from the orders denying their respective motions for a new trial both defendants appealed. Subsequently, on motion of the attorney-general, the appeal of Hayes was dismissed and the judgment and order appealed from by him were affirmed under section 1253 of the Penal Code.

"Appellant Dulin urges (1) that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, (2) that the court misdirected the jury in matters of law, (3) that the court erred in giving as well as in refusing certain instructions, and (4) in refusing to grant him a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

"The evidence shows that a body was found at about 9 :50 p. m. of January 17, 1933, from five to ten feet from the north end of a bridge located on Bast Spring Street, about one mile west of the town of Los Alamitos and three or four ndles east of Long Beach. It was identified as the body of Mickey Brno and was still warm when found. Brno died as the result of gunshot wounds.

"(1) Appellant contends that the evidence fails to connect him with the murder charged. Without going into the evidence in detail, it is sufficient to say that the jury might well conclude therefrom that some time before the murder two men, one of whom was a friend of appellant for several years, brought a diamond ring to defendant Hayes to be disposed of; that Hayes gave it to Brno for disposition and that Brno and one ‘Socks’ Brewer borrowed or raised a sum of money thereon and divided it between themselves; that Hayes thereafter spent some time looking for the ring and Brewer. That Dulin was interested with him appears from the testimony of the witness Mrs. Proctor, who went to Dulin’s apartment the afternoon of the day of the murder to find Hayes, to see ‘if he had gotten Mickey’s [Brno’s] car’. ‘Then, said she, ‘we drifted into a conversation about them using the car to find Socks, and they was trying to locate him on account of the ring.’ Dulin said he ‘didn’t like the way things were going’, and ‘I told him that I knew Mickey was trying to find him