Hall v. Superior Court In and For Sacramento County

• Citation: 262 P.2d 351,120 Cal.App.2d 844
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 27 October 1953
• Parties: . District Court of Appeal, Third District, California

Page 351

262 P.2d 351

120 Cal.App.2d 844

HALL et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Oct. 27, 1953.

As Modified Nov. 9, 1953.

Hearing Denied Dec. 23, 1953.

Peter Mannino, Edwin L. Z'Berg, Sacramento, Keith W. Lamb, Asst. Public Def., for petitioners.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. by Doris H. Maier, Sacramento, Elvin F. Sheehy, Dist. Atty., Sacramento, for respondent.

SCHOTTKY, Justice.

Petitioners filed in this court a petition to prohibit the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento, from taking any further proceedings upon an information theretofore filed against petitioners. The said information charged petitioners with the crime of murder, and following a preliminary examination they were held to answer. They then entered pleas of not guilty and were tried in the Superior Court, which trial resulted in the jury disagreeing. Thereafter, petitioners moved the trial court for leave to withdraw their pleas in order to move the court to set aside the information upon the ground that they had been illegally committed. Their motion to withdraw their pleas was granted and they then made a motion to set aside the information, which motion was denied by the court. Their pleas of not guilty were then reinstated, and the cause was set for trial for Wednesday, September 23, 1953. Within the statutory time petitioners filed herein their petition for a writ of prohibition and we issued an alternative writ and stayed further proceedings in the Superior Court pending the decision of this court upon said petition.

The principal contention of petitioners is that the proof at the preliminary examination failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense charged, and that the defendants were held to answer without reasonable or probable cause, and therefore the information was illegal and void. Petitioners argue that the oral statements of the petitioners which were admitted against them at the preliminary examination, over the objections of petitioners, could have no weight because the corpus delicti had not been shown.

It is, of course, elementary that before a defendant may be held to answer to the Superior Court it must appear from the testimony at the preliminary examination that a public offense has been committed, and as this court said in In re Schuber, 68 Cal.App.2d 424, at page 425, 156 P.2d 944, at page 945:

'As stated in the case of People v. Simonsen, 107 Cal. 345, 40 P. 440: 'It is elementary that the corpus delicti must be established before extrajudicial statements and admissions of a defendant are admissible in evidence and can be considered as tending to establish the fact to which they relate.' That such is the overwhelming weight of authority in this country must be conceded. In re Kelly, 28 Nev. 491, 83 P. 223.

'While it is true that preliminary examinations of persons accused of crime when held before a committing magistrate are usually less formal in matters of procedure than would be required upon the trial of the cause the essential principles of procedure and of evidence may not be departed from by committing magistrates in the conduct of such examinations, In re Williams, 52 Cal.App. 566, 199 P. 347, and although the committing magistrate may hold a defendant to answer upon evidence which would not support a verdict of guilty, nevertheless there must be some evidence tending to show the commission of the crime charged before a defendant's admission or confession can be introduced for any purpose. People v. Kaye, 43 Cal.App.2d 802, 111 P.2d 679.'

At the preliminary examination one Casimiro Brea, who occupied a cabin down on the river front in Sacramento, at which cabin decedent Rosario Gonzales also resided, testified that decedent came home at 7:30 p. m. on the night of March 31, 1953; that he was in a very drunken condition, having been drinking for two or three weeks, but that the witness saw no bruises upon him; that decedent went into his room and Brea did not see him again until about 6:00 o'clock the next morning when, after preparing coffee, he called decedent, and getting no answer went into decedent's room and found him dead in bed. Dr. G. A. Prisinzano performed an autopsy at 4:00 p. m. on the afternoon of April 1, 1953, and testified that the autopsy showed a ruptured liver with extensive internal bleeding, and that death was caused by the ruptured liver and the accompanying shock and internal bleeding. Analysis of the blood of decedent showed an alcoholic content of .310, and the doctor testified that this meant that the man was drunk when he died. The doctor testified further:

'Q. [Mr. Sheehy]: And did you arrive at any conclusion as to the manner in which the injury had been received to that individual's liver? A. No, just speculation, There was no evidence of any bruises.

* * *

* * *

'A. Well, in my opinion since the body had no evidence of bruises or any other evidence of any--we had no history of any trauma of any sort, in my opinion such an injury could be caused by a blow whether it was a fist or a kick.

'Mr. Sheehy: Q. But it was your opinion that it was received as a result of some blow of some sort, is that true? A. Yes.'

The doctor testified further that in a man in the drunken condition that decedent was in, the abdominal muscles would be relaxed and that a blow delivered there could rupture the liver and cause the damage he found. He said there were no external bruises anywhere on the body which he would have expected to find had the ruptured liver been caused by falling or being struck by an automobile, and the like. He said, however, that if falling or running into an object could simulate the force of a blow to the abdomen it could have the same effect, but that he deemed this rather far-fetched.

Officer Francis Gregory testified that on April 2nd he began interviewing five boys whom the officers suspected of having beaten decedent. Counsel for petitioners objected at the preliminary examination to the court's receiving the extrajudicial statements upon the ground that the corpus delicti had not been proved, but said objection was overruled, and the officer testified that the story of the boys was that for about three weeks they had amused themselves by going down into the skid row section of Sacramento and beating up drunks whom they found in the streets and alleys; that they identified a picture of decedent as one of those they had beaten up and stated that one of them had kicked him and then lifted him up in a sitting position while the third struck him in the abdomen. How long this occurred before decedent got back from skid row to the cabin on the river was not shown.

In People v. Simonsen, 107 Cal. 345, at page 346, 40 P. 440, the...