People v. Britton

WASTE, C. J. Appellant was convicted upon three counts of an indictment charging kidnaping for the purpose of robbery and upon two counts charging robbery. In accordance with the verdicts of the jury returned on the kidnaping charges he was sentenced to life imprisonment “with possibility of parole.” This cause does not, therefore, present the issue involved in the companion eases (Crim. Nos. 3932, 3933, 3934) (ante, pp. 1, 7, 8 [56 Pac. (2d) 493, 494, 497]), this day decided. Upon his appeal to the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division One, he urged, among other things, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try hiip because the grand jury which returned the indictment against him “was drawn and empaneled contrary to law.” Following an affirmance by the District Court of Appeal of the several judgments, appellant petitioned this court for a hearing which we granted because at the time there was pending before us the case of Fitts v. Superior Court, S. F. 15377, wherein substantially the same assaults as are here urged were directed against the same grand jury. We have since handed down our decision in the Fitts case, supra (4 Cal. (2d) 514 [51 Pac. (2d) 66]), which decision fully answers appellant’s contention addressed to the asserted improper empanelment of the grand jury.

[12]Our examination of the record and authorities satisfies us as to the correctness of the following portions of the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Houser in the District Court of Appeal which we hereby adopt as part of the decision of this court:

“Prom each of several judgments which were rendered against him pursuant to respective verdicts that were returned by a jury, as well as from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied, defendant Mikesell has appealed to this court.

“The charges that were preferred against defendant arose from an alleged kidnaping of certain persons ‘for the purpose of robbery’.

“Appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to support the several verdicts or either of the judgments. Although it is clear that defendant was not personally present when the victims of the kidnaping were first unlawfully seized by his codefendants, with an ‘intent to hold or detain ’ such victims,—from an examination of the evidence adduced on the trial of the action this court is convinced that it was sufficient to justify the conclusion on the part of the jury that not only before such kidnaping originally occurred did the defendant aid and abet, or advise and encourage his eodefendants in the nefarious enterprise, but as well that before the crime was completed defendant actively and with criminal intent participated with his co-defendants in carrying the commission of the crime to its conclusion ; from which it follows that in that regard the point presented by defendant is unavailing to him.