People v. Oldham
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Robbery — Property of Foreign Corporation—Evidence—Proof of De Facto Corporation.—Where an information for the crime of robbery charges that the property taken was the property of a corporation organized under the laws of the territory of Colorado, and doing business in the state of California, evidence of a de facto corporation is sufficient to sustain the charge as laid, and it is not essential to prove a legal incorporation under the laws of the territory.
Id.—Proof of Ownership—Possession—Agency.—In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in larceny or robbery, proof of possession of the stolen property by the person from whom it was taken is sufficient evidence of ownership; and proof that it was taken from the possession of the agents of the corporation to whom it is alleged to belong, is sufficient proof of its ownership, the possession of the agents of the company being the possession of the company.
Id.—Declarations of Conspirator — Hearsay — Extrajudicial Admissions—Proof of Robbery.—Evidence of the statements of a coconspirator, made during the life of the conspiracy, are admissible against the other conspirator; hut declarations made by such coconspirator . after the crime has been committed, are hearsay, and inadmissible, nor can the existence of a robbery be proved as against the defendant by the extrajudicial admissions of a coconspirator, made after the commission of the offense.
Id.—Error not Cured—Testimony of Conspirator—Instruction.— Error in admitting the declaration of a coconspiratoi^ made after the commission of the robbery as to the details of the robbery is not cured by the fact that such coconspirator testified to the same statements, nor by an instruction of the court to disregard any statements or confessions of the accomplice other than his sworn testimony.
Id.—Distrust of False Witness—Erroneous Instruction.—If is error to instruct the jury that it is their duty, as matter of law, if they believe a witness to be willfully false in one part of his testimony, to reject all of his testimony.
Id.—Instruction not Justified by Evidence.—The court should not give an instruction which is not justified by any evidence.
Garoutte, J. The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. Upon a certain afternoon the stage traveling from Ukiah to the coast was stopped by one Hilton, a highwayman, and [651]Wells, Fargo & Go’s boxes, containing about one thousand dollars, were taken. It is conceded that the defendant was not present at the robbery, but it is claimed that, though miles distant at the time, still he connived, abetted, aided, and encouraged the commission of the offense, and that, therefore, under the Penal Code of this state, he is equally guilty as a principal.
1. The information charged the property stolen to have been the property of Wells, Fargo & Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the territory of Colorado, and doing business in the state of California. At the trial it was proven that Wells, Fargo & Co. was a corporation de facto, doing business in this state. It is now insisted that there was a failure of proof in not establishing the corporation to have been organized under the laws of the territory of Colorado. Counsel concede that if no such allegation had been laid in the information the proof would have been unnecessary, but, the fact being so stated, it became material, made so by the pleader, and should have been established as any other material fact in the case. Such contention has support (see State v. Newland, 7 Iowa, 242; 71 Am. Dec. 444), but this court has never followed the doctrine there outlined. In People v. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 651, the identical question here presented was before the court, and it was held, that evidence of a de facto corporation was sufficient to support the charge as here laid. The same principle was also involved and finds full support in People v. Frank, 28 Cal. 519, and People v. Hughes, 29 Cal 260. The evidence we find in the record as to the defacto character of this corporation, the nature of tho business in which it was engaged, etc., is not at-all clear and conclusive, and, as the case must be returned to the lower court for a new trial, the introduction of some additional evidence upon these points would be time well spent.
2. It is claimed that there is no evidence showing the ownership of the money stolen to have been in Wells, Fargo & Co. This contention is not well founded. [652]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)