People v. Manes

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1940 No. Crim. No. 3390Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that although the district attorney's improper questioning and the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's sexual conduct were erroneous, they did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.

Issues

Did the district attorney commit prejudicial error by asking questions regarding the defendant's husband's criminal history?
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error by admitting testimony regarding the defendant's sexual intercourse with a witness?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In view of the fact that the jury had before it uncontradicted evidence that defendant’s husband had been shot and killed shortly after having perpetrated a robbery we fail to see where any prejudice which was not fully cured”

“It may be conceded that it was error to admit evidence of defendant’s immoral act with Mr. Roah; however, under the circumstances such error was not prejudicial to the defendant”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of robbery in the first degree after trial by jury defendant appeals. There is also an appeal from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The essential facts are:

Shortly before 2:00 A. M. on January 4, 1940, Mr. Sellman, who operated a liquor store at 4263 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, was held up by a bandit at the point of a gun, who removed cash from the register in the front of the store. Having done so, he said to Mr. Sellman, 1 ‘ Stand there and nobody will get hurt.” The bandit left, whereupon Mr. Sellman,- seeing the bandit standing in front of the store, got his own gun, shot at the bandit, and mortally wounded him.

At about the same time defendant was observed driving her car very slowly in front of the liquor store while she looked into it. This was shortly after the shooting.

Thereafter defendant mingled with the crowd around the dying bandit, looked at him, asked what had happened, walked across the street, and engaged in conversation with a Mr. Roah, who was a total stranger to her. She accepted bis invitation to go to a restaurant and have something to eat and thereafter Mr. Roah and defendant repaired to her apartment where she served him two drinks, and they had sexual intercourse. Defendant was the wife of the deceased bandit.

It is significant that appellant does not urge as a ground of reversal of the judgment insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Therefore, we will not set forth in detail the abundance of incriminatory evidence upon which the judgment was based.

She relies for reversal of the judgment on these propositions :

First: The district attorney committed prejudicial error by asking the following questions during the course of ■the trial:

“Q. Your husband was an ex-convict, wasn’t he?

[264] “Mr. WARNER: Just a second. I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and I assign it as misconduct on the part of the District Attorney in this case.

“The COURT: It will be sustained and the jury is admonished to disregard the same.”

People v. Manes

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief