People v. Baumgartner, Cr. 2874

Decision Date12 December 1958
Docket NumberCr. 2874
Citation166 Cal.App.2d 103,332 P.2d 366
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John BAUMGARTNER and Oscar T. Foster, Defendants and Appellants.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Herbert C. Coblentz, Stockton, for appellant Baumgartner.

John L. Briscoe, Public Defender, Stockton, for appellant Foster.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by G. A. Strader, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment following the verdict of a jury finding defendants guilty of robbery in the first degree, and from an order denying a new trial. The information charged that on November 18, 1957, the defendants took from the person and immediate presence of one James Hicks the sum of $2,000 by means of force and by putting the said James Hicks in fear. The scene of the robbery was the Gaines Super Market in Stockton, California. The time was about 8:45 P.M. Four market employees were present when two men entered the market. They were identified, at the trial, by a number of witnesses as being the defendants. Baumgartner had a .45 automatic in his hand, Foster a .22 caliber revolver. The employees were forced to open the cash registers and remove the money. An attempt to open the safe was futile. After securing the cash available from the registers, the men ordered the market employees to the rear of the marker and fled. The identifications were positive. Four days after the commission of the robbery, Baumgartner was arrested at his home in Palo Alto. The officers found $300 in currency hidden in the mattress of his bed and a .45 caliber automatic was taken from his automobile. Foster was arrested in Los Angeles County six days after the robbery. At the time of his arrest he had a .22 caliber revolver in the glove compartment of his automobile. One Frank Gail Cox, aged 17 years, testified that he saw Foster on a street in Stockton on the afternoon of November 18, 1957; that Foster waved him down and got into his car, promising to give him $5 if he would take him to Palo Alto; that he drove Foster to Palo Alto and to John Baumgartner's home, being directed thereto by Foster; that Foster left the car and had a conversation with Baumgartner, then came back to the car and that Cox and Foster went to a local restaurant for coffee; that during the conversation at the restaurant, Foster asked Cox if a certain super market in Stockton would be easy to rob; that Cox stated he didn't know, whereupon Foster said that he intended to rob it; that Foster then returned towards Stockton in Baumgartner's car while Cox followed them as far as the Dumbarton Bridge where he lost them; that at about 9 o'clock that evening he went to the Gaines Market where he found that the market had been robbed by two men, but he did not then give his information to those present. There was other evidence corroborative of the testimony of the market employees and of Cox. Both defendants took the stand and denied their guilt and both presented alibi witnesses of more than usual apparent merit. To convict, the jury must have disbelieved them. Both men had priors.

After the jury had deliberated for six hours, they were returned to the court at their request. Their foreman informed the court that they could not agree on a verdict. Thereupon the following occurred:

'The Court: Mr. Gerken [the Foreman]. What is it you want to tell me?

'The Foreman: The jury cannot reach a decision on this matter.

'The Court: Mr. Foreman, I am going to ask you a question and I wish you would listen to the question very carefully before you answer it because at this time the only thing I want is the answer to the particular question--I am not asking you to name the defendant--I am only asking you this: I assume that the jury is divided numerically?

'The Foreman: Yes.

'The Court: How do you stand numerically?

'The Foreman: Eleven for conviction and----

'The Court: (Interposing) Just eleven----

'The Foreman: Eleven to one.

'The Court: Eleven to one.

'You may be seated, sir.

'Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am going to ask you to deliberate further upon the matter.

* * *

* * *

'The Court: * * * I will read you then one further instruction.

'The Foreman: Yes, sir.

'The Court: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: In a large proportion of cases, and perhaps, strictly speaking, in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected. Although the verdict to which a juror agrees must of course by his own verdict, the result of his own convictions, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his or her fellows, yet, in order to bring twelve minds to a unanimous result you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other. You should consider that the case must at some time be decided; that you are selected in the same manner, and from the same source from which any future jury must be; and there is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to twelve men and women more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on the one side or the other. And with this view it is your duty to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so. In order to make a decision more practicable, the law imposes the burden of proof on one party or the other, in all cases. In the present case, the burden of proof is upon the People of the State of California to establish every part of it beyond a reasonable doubt; and if, in any part of it, you are left in doubt, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and must be acquitted. But, in conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions, and listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments. And, on the one hand, if must the larger number of your panel are for a conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether a doubt in his or her own mind is a reasonable one, which makes no impression upon the minds of so many men or women, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself or herself, and who have heard the same evidence with the same attention with an equal desire to arrive at the truth, and under the sanction of the same oath. And, on the other hand, if a majority are for acquittal, the minority ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably, and ought not to doubt the correnctness of a judgment, which is not concurred in by most of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • People v. Gainer
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 de agosto de 1977
    ...the jury stood 11 to 1 for conviction, delivered a conventionally embellished version of the Allen instruction. (People v. Baumgartner (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 103, 332 P.2d 366.) The appellate court reversed the conviction on the ground that under the circumstances the charge was coercive of ......
  • State v. Manlove, 87
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 19 de abril de 1968
    ...reaching a verdict (Chicago Daily News Employes' Credit Union v. Reed, 42 Ill.App.2d 336, 192 N.E.2d 447 (1963); People v. Baumgartner, 166 Cal.App.2d 103, 332 P.2d 366 (1958); N.M. Uniform Jury Instructions The judgment of conviction should be affirmed. It is so ordered. SPIESS, C.J., and ......
  • People v. Flores
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 17 de maio de 1971
    ...proceeded to read to the jury a statement in language identical to that given by trial judges in the cases of People v. Baumgartner, 166 Cal.App.2d 103, 105--106, 332 P.2d 366; People v. Barnes, 210 Cal.App.2d 740, 26 Cal.Rptr. 793; People v. Ortega, 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 896, 83 Cal.Rptr. The ......
  • People v. Guillen, Cr. 23353
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 15 de março de 1974
    ...People v. Ortega, 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 83 Cal.Rptr. 260; People v. Barnes, 210 Cal.App.2d 740, 26 Cal.Rptr. 793, and People v. Baumgartner, 166 Cal.App.2d 103, 332 P.2d 366, but after the jury foreman announced the jury was deadlocked. Appellant asserts that such instruction can only be proper......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...because the minority jurors may interpret this as an indication the court agrees with the majority. People v. Baumgartner (1958) 166 Cal. App. 2d 103, 107, 332 P.2d 366. While there is the potential for coercion in this circumstance, ordering further deliberations is not inherently coercive......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 67, §1:410 Baugh v. Garl (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 737, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539, §20:80 Baumgartner, People v. (1958) 166 Cal. App. 2d 103, 332 P.2d 366, §22:140 Bay Summit Community Assn. v. Shell Oil Co. (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 762, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322, §§22:20, 22:50 Beagl......

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