People v. Brown

MOORE, P. J. Convicted of grand theft from the person, defendant seeks a reversal on grounds of asserted errors of the trial judge. She makes no claim of innocence or of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The victim of the stealth and strong arm of this prowling woman was one Louis Barton. He had attended a meeting at the Hollywood Athletic Club on Sunset Boulevard near the intersection with Hudson Street in Los Angeles. About midnight, he left the club and approached his automobile on Hudson. As he inserted his key into the lock of the door, a cream-colored conveyance swerved in front of the Barton ear and a woman alighted, cried out: “Hey, just a minute.’’ She seized the genitals of her theftee with one hand and with the other withdrew about one hundred dollars from his left front pants’ pocket. He pushed her to the ground, but she arose with alacrity and, nothing daunted, with a nail file in her right hand, she advanced to mow Mr. Barton down. But she was doomed to disappointment. After a five-minute struggle, he wrenched the file from her left hand, as she held his money in her right. Thereupon, she fled to her car. Momentarily dazed by such violent encounter, Mr. Barton duly pursued the female figure and as she was taking her departure, through her open window he retrieved her money bag, threw it to the street and recovered a portion of the stolen lucre. He hastily entered his own vehicle and followed Mrs. Brown until she slowed down at an intersection when he wrote her license number. He continued pursuit without avail. The police did the necessary.

The defense was an alibi. Appellant and her witnesses testified substantially that during the evening and to the instant of the crime, appellant attended a card party in the 11400 block on Towne Avenue, Los Angeles, some 15 miles from the athletic club. The implication of such testimony was that the thief could not have stolen the money from such distance. But the jury declined to draw the intended inference. They convicted the woman, and probation was denied. She now languishes in a state prison.

Assignment is made of the court’s ruling and remarks as prejudicial under the following circumstances: On his direct examination, Mr. Barton testified that he had about $100 in his pocket before the theft and had recovered about $10 or $30. When on cross-examination, Barton was asked whether he had ever told any person or officer in the case that he had lost $40, the court intervened as follows:

[601]