People v. Gonzales

PER CURIAM. Gonzales (the appellant here) and one Fernandez were charged by information with the crime of robbery, committed by forcibly taking from one P. Santonette a brass watch and also the sum of $40 in money, the personal property of said P. Santonette. Gonzales was tried separately, and convicted. At the trial it appeared that the true name of the person called P. Santonette in the information is Peter Latonette. He testified, however, that he is known by the name of Pete Santonette, and was so known to Gonzales at the time of the alleged robbery, and gave that as his name on the preliminary examination of this case. It further appeared from his testimony that he came from his residence in the Santa Cruz mountains to the city of San Jose “for amusement and rest,” and to promote these objects he formed the acquaintance, on the night of the al[264]leged robbery, of said Gonzales and Fernandez, and also of one Pitts. All took several drinks at the expense of Santonette, after which, as the four persons named were walking along one of the streets of the city about the hour of 12 midnight—Pitts being a few paces behind the others—Santonette received a blow on the head, struck by Gonzales, and fell to the ground, where he remained insensible about fifteen minutes. When he recovered consciousness, he was alone, and then missed his purse, containing $40, which he had carried in -his pocket, and his brass watch, which he wore when he was knocked down. He immediately complained to the police. Said Pitts testified': That a scuffle occurred between S-antonette and Gonzales. He saw Gonzales holding the former on the ground. “I can’t swear positively that he went through the man’s pockets, but the best of my knowledge is that he did. I believe this from the way they acted. It was so dark I could not see well.” That they left Santonette lying on the ground where he fell. A certain police officer testified to a declaration of Gonzales to the effect that Santonette insulted him, -and he (Gonzales) knocked him down. Rosia Garcia, a witness for defendant, testified that Pitts came to her house about 1:30 A. M. of the night in question, and said he and Gonzales had robbed a man; that he (Pitts) struck him, and Gonzales “went through his pockets.” Other evidence produced on either side need not be stated. It must be assumed, in support of the verdict, that the jury found the testimony on behalf of the prosecution to be true. Among the instructions of the court to the jury was the following matter: “It is contended in this case that the witness Pitts was an accomplice in the commission -of a robbery, if it was committed, -and therefore his testimony should not be considered by the jury, unless corroborated by other facts and circumstances in the case.” The court then stated to the jury the rule forbidding a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, in the language of section 1111 of the Penal Code.