People v. Curry

HERNDON, J. Defendants Curry and James appeal from the judgments entered against them following a nonjury trial that resulted in their conviction of the crime of first degree murder.1

The evidence herein, which was presented by way of the transcript of the testimony given at appellants’ preliminary hearing, indicates that on June 12, 1963, at approximately 9:45 p.m., one Clyde Bollinger, who was working as the attendant at a gas station in Compton, California, staggered [147]into a nearby shop bleeding from the nose, eyes and mouth and holding his stomach. He informed the persons there present that he had been shot “over by the register” by a colored man who had run away in a northerly direction.

One of these persons testified that he had hurried to a telephone to call an ambulance but that by the time he returned, the victim was dead. He died from a gunshot wound in the chest which penetrated his heart and right lung. The victim appeared to have been in good health and condition when he talked to this witness five minutes earlier. This witness believed that the victim had used the word “register,” although he admitted it could have been “rest room,” since the police said that the pool of blood was nearer thereto.

The only other evidence introduced against the three defendants found guilty of this crime (only two of whom have appealed) is their individual confessions. Bach of these confessions was received only as against the person who made it and not against the others. No serious contention was made that they were involuntary, nor was this issue originally raised on this appeal.

As initially presented, the primary assignment of error related to the sufficiency of the evidence, i.e., appellants contended that although the corpus delicti of murder had been established independently of their confessions, nonetheless they could not be found guilty of murder in the first degree because the corpus delicti of robbery was not proved aliunde their confessions. This argument has been rejected in People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 765-767 [3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 964]; People v. Miller, 37 Cal.2d-801, 806 [236 P.2d 137]; and People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177-178 [311 P.2d 117].

However, prior to the filing of appellants’ closing brief herein, our Supreme Court filed its original opinion in the case of People v. Dorado (Cal.) 40 Cal.Rptr. 264. The applicability of this decision was then urged by appellants and for that reason the submission of this appeal was deferred pending the filing of the Supreme Court’s decision upon its rehearing of the Dorado case. This decision has now been filed (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361]), and its direct application to the instant case is clearly indicated. The court therein expressed the now applicable law as follows :