People v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 26 February 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 1746
• Citation: 28 Cal.Rptr. 839,213 Cal.App.2d 387
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven E. ROBERTS, aka Steven James Broome, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 839

28 Cal.Rptr. 839

213 Cal.App.2d 387

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven E. ROBERTS, aka Steven James Broome, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1746.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Feb. 26, 1963.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1963.

Hearing Denied April 24, 1963.

[213 Cal.App.2d 390] Joseph V. Mazziotta, San Bernardino, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jact K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

COUGHLIN, Justice.

The defendant was charged with escape from a state prison camp, i. e., a violation of § 4531 of the Penal Code; was tried by a jury and convicted; moved for a new trial, which was denied; was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison; appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and the judgment; claims that he is not the person who committed the subject offense; and contends that his conviction should be set aside because the evidence is insufficient to support the same, he was deprived of a fair trial, errors were committed therein, the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct, and the trial judge was prejudiced against him.

There is no appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial (Pen.Code, § 1237; People v. Eppers, 205 A. C.A. 800, 801, 23 Cal.Rptr. 222), and the attempted appeal therefrom should be dismissed.

Defendant urges seven indexed grounds for reversal, which are set forth in a brief personally prepared and filed herein by him. Each of these will be stated in the course of our consideration. His court appointed attorney filed a statement herein declaring that, in his opinion, no reversible error occurred in the trial court.

ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The overall contention of the defendant is that the person who committed the alleged offense with which he is charged, i. e., the person who was imprisoned in and escaped from a state prison camp, was a man whom he knew, who looked like him, but was not he. The person in the prison camp was known by the name of Steven E. Roberts. The defendant claims that his name is Stephen James Broome, and that Specifically, he contends that the evidence Specificallt, he contends that the evidence herein was insufficient to establish that he was the person who committed the subject offense.

As the defendant personally presents the points raised on this appeal, we reiterate for his benefit the general rules which govern an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a judgment, viz.:

"* * * it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before the verdict of the jury, which has been approved by the trial court, can be set aside on appeal upon the ground' of insufficiency of the evidence, 'it must be made cleary to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below." (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778, 779);

if there is any substantial evidence, either contradicted or uncontradicted, direct or circumstantial, which supports the conclusion reached, it will be assumed that, in the absence of some legal impediment, the trier of facts accepted that evidence and rejected any other evidence which might support a contrary conclusion, and the judgment in the case must be affirmed; where two or more inferences are reasonably deducible from the evidence, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trier of fact; thus, if the circumstances under consideration justify the conclusion reached, the opinion of the Appellate Court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination made; the credibility of witnesses who testified at the trial is a matter solely for determination by the trier of fact; and the acceptance or weight to be given their testimony is not subject to review, unless it is obviously false or inherently improbable. (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 694, 299 P.2d 231; People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885, 256 P.2d 911; People v. Foster, 195 Cal.App.2d 651, 652-653, 15 Cal.Rptr. 891.)

The defendant was identified by two prison camp guards who had seen the escapee every day for over a month prior to his escape, and by a Mrs. Dix, who testified that she was his sister, as the man named Steven E. Roberts who was a prisoner at the subject camp. The defendant did not deny that Mrs. Dix was his sister. He also was identified by a Mr. Hamilton, who testified that he was the defendant's half brother, and that he had known him by the name of Carl Eugene Roberts. There was testimony that the prisoner, Roberts had an eagle tatoo on his left shoulder and the letters 'U.S.M.C.' or 'U.S.A.C.' on the back of his left fingers. The defendant had an eagle tatoo on his left shoulder, and letters on the back of his left fingers which he claimed were 'U.G.H.C.' and which he showed to the jury. The fingerprints of the prisoner and those of the defendant were identified by an expert witness as the fingerprints of the same person.

The defendant contends that the witness in question was not qualified to give an opinion on the subject. There is no basis for this contention. The witness had been engaged in fingerprint identification work for 25 years; had been schooled therein; and had made 'a good many thousand' fingerprint comparisons for the purpose of identification. Furthermore, no objection to the witness' qualifications were made at the time of trial, and an objection thereto cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 775, 87 P. 622.)

The defendant testified that he had not been in prison; that during the time of his alleged confinement in prison, prior to the subject escape, he had been working in the states of Washington and Oregon; that he was in Long Beach, California, on August 1, 1961, which was 18 days before the escape charged against him, and produced alibi witnesses purporting to substantiate this claim; that he knew a man by the name of Steven E. Roberts who looked exactly like him, had a spread eagle tatoo on his left shoulder and the letters 'U.S.M.C.' on the back of his left fingers.

The defendant claims also that it was not established why Steven E. Roberts was at the prison camp in question or why he is 'not still' there. However, the evidence adequately establishes that Roberts was imprisoned in the California Institution for Men at Chino, California; was transferred to prison camp No. 37; and, after being at that camp for approximately a month, was discovered missing following a routine check; that a search was conducted for him but he was not located; and that he thereafter was arrested in Long Beach, California, at which time he claimed he was Stephen James Broome, the defendant.

Under the rules heretofore stated, the evidence adequately supports the verdict. (Generally see People v. Waller, 14 Cal.2d 693, 700, 96 P.2d 344; People v. Pollart, 208 A.C.A. 856, 857-858, 25 Cal.Rptr. 678; People v. Jackson, 183 Cal.App.2d 562, 567, 6 Cal.Rptr. 884.) The defendant's argument in support of his contention to the contrary is confined to a consideration of the weight of the evidence to support the verdict. His testimony merely created a conflict in the evidence, the resolution of which was an exclusive function of the trier of fact. In substance, he asks us to retry the case, which we may not do. (People v. Treggs, 171 Cal.App.2d 537, 543, 341 P.2d 343.) In many particulars, his presentation relies upon alleged facts which find no support in the record. It is well settled that an appellate court may not take cognizance of such facts. (People v. Foster, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d 651, 654, 15 Cal.Rptr. 861.)

SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because certain evidence was suppressed, viz.: (1) A fingerprint arrest which showed his height to be 6'1"' and his weight 159 pounds, whereas 1"' and his weight 159 pounds, whereas the prison records introduced in evidence showed that Steven E. Roberts, the escapee, was 6' 3"' in height and his weight was 170 pounds; (2) a work record, the contents of which are not before this court; (3) an exemplar of the defendant's handwriting which he claims was 'analyzed' and found not to be the handwriting of the escapee, Robers; (4) the latter's medical record, compiled by the 'California Department of Corrections,' which would have shown 'a great deal of difference between Steven E. Roberts' and the defendant; (5) a chest x-ray which was part of the aforesaid medical records, which would have shown a difference in the bone structure between that of the escape Roberts and that of the defendant, and also would have shown scar tissue on Roberts' lungs and a slipped disc in his spine, all of which would have tended to show that Roberts, the escapee, and Broome, the defendant, were not the same person; and (6) Roberts' prison dental record which would show that he had nine fillings and 10 teeth missing, whereas the defendant has all of his teeth except three. 'The intentional suppression of material evidence by the state would, of course, be a denial of a fair trial and due process.' (People v. Kiihoa, 53 Cal.2d 748, 752, 3 Cal.Rptr. 1, 4, 349 P.2d 673, 675.)

Although the defendant relates the contents of the records which he claims were suppressed, nothing before us verifies his statements in this regard; and although he purports to know the contents of those records, there is no showing of any request by him that they be produced.

In some circumstances this might be manifest by a failure to introduce such evidence. On the other hand, the prosecution...