People v. Chapman, Cr. 6428

Citation52 Cal.2d 95,338 P.2d 428
Decision Date01 May 1959
Docket NumberCr. 6428
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesPEOPLE of State of California, Respondent, v. Jack H. CHAPMAN et al., Appellants.

Gerald J. Levie and Burt Marks, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. and Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

Jack H. Chapman and Avis Spears were convicted after a trial by jury of a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code. 1 Chapman was also convicted of violating section 266h of the Penal Code 2 and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 702), a lesser offense necessarily included in a charge of violating subdivision 1 of section 261 of the Penal Code. 3 They have appealed from the judgments and from orders denying a new trial.

Chapman and his wife lived in a house in La Puente with several other people, including Avis Spears. In the first part of 1957 Chapman brought Gloria Jean Woods, who was 16 or 17 years old, to California to help take care of his mother. Gloria, who was given permission by her mother to stay with the Chapmans, remained with them for about three months and then ran away to Los Angeles.

Several months afterward Gloria was arrested on information given to the police that, along with other members of the Chapman household, she had been engaged in illegal sexual activities. During interrogation by officers of the police department attached to the juvenile division, she first denied but later admitted that the alleged offenses had occurred. Chapman and Avis Spears were arrested and brought to trial.

The court properly refused to grant defendants' motion for separate trials for each of them on each count of the information. Section 954 of the Penal Code permits joinder of different offenses which do not relate to the same transaction or event where there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission. 4 People v. Scott, 24 Cal.2d 774, 778-779, 151 P.2d 517; People v. Thorn, 138 Cal.App. 714, 735, 33 P.2d 5. Section 1098 provides for joint trials of two or more defendants who are charged jointly with any public offense. 5 The fact that Avis Spears is charged with only one of the crimes does not render the joinder improper or deprive the court of discretion to deny a motion for severance since there is a joint charge as to one of the crimes and a common element of substantial importance in the commission of all of them. People v. Cohen, 107 Cal.App.2d 334, 342, 237 P.2d 301; People v. Nasworthy, 94 Cal.App.2d 85, 91-92, 210 P.2d 83; People v. Burton, 91 Cal.App.2d 695, 714, 205 P.2d 1065 et seq.; People v. Flores, 62 Cal.App.2d 700, 705, 145 P.2d 318; see People v. Andrews, 165 Cal.App.2d 626, 332 P.2d 408; cf. People v. Duane, 21 Cal.2d 71, 76, 130 P.2d 123. It follows that there was no abuse of discretion in denying separate trials to defendants.

The principal question raised on this appeal is whether the court erred in refusing to compel the production of a statement prepared by the police and signed by Gloria. Defendants sought to obtain this statement for impeachment purposes after Gloria, on cross-examination, said that it related to matters covered by her testimony.

The defendant in a criminal case can on a proper showing compel production of documents in the possession of the People which are relevant and material to the defense, and this rule has been applied to written statements of prosecution witnesses relating to the subject matter of their testimony where the statements were sought by the defense for purposes of impeachment. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 666, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 et seq.; Tupper v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 263, 264, 266-267, 331 P.2d 977; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 585, 305 P.2d 1 et seq.; cf. Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698. The value of obtaining such statements, particularly where they were made before time dulled the memory of the witness, is obvious. The statements may contain contradictions of the testimony of the witness, may omit some facts related by the witness at the trial, or may reveal a contrast in the emphasis placed on the same facts.

In order to obtain production of the prior statement of a prosecution witness, a defendant is not required to show that there is any inconsistency between the statement and the testimony of the witness. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 666-668, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. As pointed out in the Jencks case, a requirement of proof of a conflict between the witness' testimony and his earlier statement, would, in many cases, deny the accused the benefit of relevant and material evidence. Ordinarily a defendant cannot show that a statement contains contradictory matters until he has seen it, and, if such a showing were a condition precedent to production, his rights would be dependent upon the highly fortuitous circumstance of his detailed knowledge as to the contents of the statement. For these reasons we disapprove any implication in People v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • People v. Ketchel
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1963
    ...with committing the two crimes alleged in the indictment. (Cf. People v. Spates (1959) 53 Cal.2d 33, 36, 346 P.2d 5; People v. Chapman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 95, 97, 338 P.2d 428.) We find no abuse of discretion. (People v. Eudy (1938) 12 Cal.2d 41, 45-46, 82 P.2d d. The alleged erroneous admissi......
  • City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1989
    ...a condition precedent to production would make an accused's rights 'dependent upon the highly fortuitous circumstance' (see People v. Chapman [1959] 52 Cal.2d 95, 98 ) of the accused's detailed knowledge as to the contents of the police officers' personnel files. [p] In the present case def......
  • People v. Nguyen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2003
    ...Appellants rely on People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 305 P.2d 1 (Riser) (disapproved on other grounds in People v. Chapman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 95, 98, 338 P.2d 428, and People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 638, 36 Cal.Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33). In Riser, our Supreme Court stated: "When the ......
  • People v. Griffith, No. H032926 (Cal. App. 5/25/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2010
    ...566, 580-581 [chain of custody requirements], overruled on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 649 and People v. Chapman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 95, 98.) The prosecution has the burden establishing the chain of custody on evidence it proffers (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...used in the commission of the crime. People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 577, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Chapman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 95, and People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631. (b) When the specific type of weapon used in the crime is unknown, and the weapon found could have b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT