People v. Valdez

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 1947 No. Crim. No. 4059Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings or in its handling of the prosecutor's remarks, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to a cross-examination question regarding the victim's identification of the defendant.
Whether the prosecutor's remarks during cross-examination of the defendant constituted prejudicial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence supports the judgment and there being no prejudicial errors in the record the judgment and order are affirmed.”

“Appellant’s contention that the ruling was prejudicial is without merit.”

“It is quite evident that no prejudice resulted from the ruling.”

DORAN, J. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of robbery of the first degree. The victim of the robbery who was a taxicab operator testified that about 1:30 o ’clock in the morning, “I was cruising down the street,” in front of the Roosevelt Building and saw the defendant “standing by the edge of the curb.” “I came back in about 10 minutes and he was still there, so that I stopped there.” “There was another fellow that hailed me.” “Mr. Valdez was back by the building by this time and this other fellow was near the curb. ’ ’ Defendant and his companion entered the cab and directed the driver to go to Beverly and Fairfax. The robbery occurred shortly thereafter. The victim further testified, referring to defendant, “he took his wallet out and he started to pay me, and I noticed he had a ten dollar bill in his pocket, and I was just going to say, ‘Well I can change that ten dollar bill,’ and then Mr. Valdez, he says, ‘This is it.’ ” Q. “Who said that?” A. “Mr. Valdez, and I looked down and he had a gun in his hand.”

It is contended on appeal that the court erred “in the admission and exclusion of evidence.” During the cross-examination of the victim of the robbery, defendant’s counsel [807]asked the following question: “Isn’t it true that you turned to the party next to you and said, ‘I don’t see the man in court,’ didn’t you make a statement like that?” An objection was sustained. It is argued that the question had reference to the witness’s ability to identify defendant and was therefore proper. Appellant’s contention that the ruling was prejudicial is without merit. Following the above ruling the witness testified as follows:

‘ ‘ Q. Did you make any statement regarding the identification of this man in the court at that time?

“A. There was no doubt in my mind, I saw the man, I knew he was there.

“Q. Didn’t you say you were not sure that is the man?

“A. I never said that.

“Q. You never said that?

“A. No, sir.

‘ ‘ Q. Who was sitting next to you ?

“A. My sister.

“Q. Who was sitting right behind you, if you remember?

“A. I don’t know.

People v. Valdez

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief