People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 06 June 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 8544
• Citation: 216 Cal.App.2d 866,31 Cal.Rptr. 432
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wilford Willie WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 432

31 Cal.Rptr. 432

216 Cal.App.2d 866

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wilford Willie WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 8544.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

June 6, 1963.

Sidney Fischgrund and Joseph J. Cogen, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Rose-Marie Gruenwald, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the People.

LILLIE, Justice.

Appellant Wright and defendants Jackson and Malone were accused by information with kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen.Code, § 209), robbery of one Bayliss (Pen.Code, § 211) and robbery of one Brody. A jury convicted Wright and Jackson of each offense charged; Malone was acquitted. As to Wright, the jury also found the robbery to be of the first degree and that he was armed as alleged in the information. All three accused were represented at the trial by separate counsel. The appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

On November 16, 1961, the victim Brody was the owner of a West Temple Street liquor store in Los Angeles. Bayliss, the other victim, then 66 years old, lived nearby at 219 Occidental. In mid-afternoon of that day and shortly after Bayliss had purchased some cigarettes from Brody, three men entered the premises. One of them said: 'This is a stick up$' Wright took Brody by the arm and ordered him to the back door. The second of the trio (described as wearing a goatee) rifled the cash register of its contents, approximately $80.00. The third man, Jackson, had a scar or cut on the left side of his face; he was armed with a short-barreled gun with which he 'jarred' Bayliss and said: 'Let's get going, Dad.' He then 'drove' Bayliss to the back room. When Wright opened the door, Jackson said: 'Don't put them out there. Stretch them out right here * * * in the hall.' Both victims were then stretched out--Bayliss on top of Brody. Wright took Bayliss' wallet containing $17.00, kept the money and threw the wallet on the floor. All three of the accused then left.

Immediately following defendants' departure, a report of the robbery was given to the police (Officer Salcido) by the victims. Later that same day Officer Salcido's report reached Officer Burke who was directed to an address on Occidental; at that address he was referred to another address in the 1800 block on West Adams Street. In the company of Officer Cline and two other officers he proceeded to the West Adams address, arriving there at approximately 6:45 p. m. Cline looked through a rear window of the building and observed Jackson (a large scar on the left side of his face) seated on a couch. Wright was seated in a chair. Cline communicated his observations to the other officers who were stationed at the front door. Officer Burke then knocked on the front door, identified himself and demanded admittance. Defendant answered the door about one minute later and was placed under arrest. The officers then entered the apartment and placed Wright and Jackson under arrest. According to Burke, the description of the three men fitted that contained in the robbery report.

A search was made of Jackson at the time of his arrest; as a result, two loose .22 caliber long rifle bullets and a box of 30 shells (same caliber bullet) were recovered from his right pants pocket. The officers also found a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with 8 shells, under a cushion of the couch where Jackson was seated.

The only defense presented by Wright was an alibi. He testified that he had never been in Brody's liquor store and that he was not in the company of the remaining defendants at the time of the robbery.

Six points on appeal are set forth in appellant's brief; however, the only contention argued at any length relates to certain inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of Bayliss which are said to be so numerous and serious as to render it incredible and therefore lacking in sufficient substantiality, upon any hypothesis whatever, to support the conclusions reached below. The foregoing contention we take up first.

Bayliss and Brody were the only other persons in the store at the time of the robbery. Since Brody was never able to identify and of the three men, Bayliss became the only identification witness; he identified all three accused in a police line-up the day after their arrest. The record discloses that Bayliss is exceedingly hard of hearing--not 'deaf' as appellant states--and apparently an illiterate. His hearing handicap resulted in the repetition of questions and answers some of which were not responsive; his illiteracy, in the giving of answers that were ambiguous. Appellant has listed 24 specific instances of asserted inconsistencies or contradictions in Bayliss' testimony, concluding with the trial court's statement at one of the sessions that 'the testimony of Bayliss is very confused.' However, in a 25-page appendix to the attorney general's reply brief, each inconsistency or contradiction is discussed and explained by reference to testimony immediately following or other circumstances which, after a careful examination thereof, do not justify a departure from the recognized rule governing the instant point. For example, the above-quoted statement of the trial judge must be qualified by his observation (immediately following) that 'unfortunately, we are handicapped by the further proposition that he (Bayliss) has an unfortunate serious defect in his hearing. I realize those things'; a motion by defendant Malone for an advisory verdict of acquittal was thereupon denied.

The 'conflict of evidence' rule is no different where the conflict is in the testimony of a single witness (People v. Robles, 183 Cal.App.2d 212, 6 Cal.Rptr. 748; People v. Rankin, 169 Cal.App.2d 150, 337 P.2d 182; People v. Bahara, 159 Cal.App.2d 160, 323 P.2d 453), and where the testimony relates to the defendant's identification. (People v. Alexander, 92 Cal.App.2d 230, 206 P.2d 657.) It is for the trier of fact to resolve such inconsistencies in the...