People v. Larsen
Before: Vanclief
Synopsis
Robbery—Evidence of Accomplice—Corroboration.—Where the only evidence to convict defendant of a robbery is that of an accomplice, who testifies that defendant planned the robbery and received part of the proceeds, and that of two witnesses, that they had seen defendant and the accomplice together on two occasions before the robbery, there is no such corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice, as required by Penal Code, section 1111, as to justify conviction.
VANCLIEF, C. The defendant and George Green were, by information, jointly accused of the crime of robbery. They demanded separate trials, and upon the separate trial of the defendant the jury returned a verdict of guilty, recommending defendant to the mercy of the court. Thereupon the court sentenced him to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of forty years. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
[287]The principal point upon which appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment is that the only evidence tending to connect him with the commission of the crime was the testimony of an accomplice—one Cliff Ragan—whose testimony was not corroborated as required by section 1111 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows: “A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself, and without aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. ’ ’ It appears that the robbery was committed at a store owned by a Chinaman named Sun Kee, about 7 o’clock in the evening of April 27, 1892. Sun Kee was 'absent at the time, and the store was in charge of a Chinaman named You Kam, with whom was another China-man, named Wong Yee. Another Chinaman, named Wong Ki, was at his cabin somewhere near the store. The three Chinamen last named testified to the effect that they had known the defendant two or three years; that he lived three or four miles from China store; that he came to the store on horseback about fifteen minutes before 7 o’clock on the evening of the robbery, while You Kam and Wong Yee were at supper, and told them that he wanted to purchase certain articles from the store; that You Kam knew he had traded at the store before and had an unsettled account there. Thereupon the two Chinamen, You Kam and Wong Yee, went with defendant from the kitchen, where they had been eating, into the store, carrying a lighted lamp with them, You Kam going behind the counter, and Wong Yee taking a seat in front of the counter. While they were in this position, two robbers armed with a pistol and a rifle—one of them masked—rushed in. The masked robber, pointing his pistol at defendant and Wong Yee, drove them into a corner; and the other pointed his rifle at You Kam, who ducked under the counter. The masked robber then backed out of the door and shot through the window at You Kam, inflicting a slight flesh wound on one of his arms. Upon being thus wounded, You Kam fell upon the floor, feigning to be dead, and did not arise until after the robbers left. Immediately after the shot was fired both.robbers tied the defendant and Wong Yee together, and one robber guarded
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)