People v. Boles
Citation | 34 Cal.Rptr. 528,221 Cal.App.2d 455 |
Decision Date | 22 October 1963 |
Docket Number | Cr. 3464 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernest Al BOLES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Henry J. Goff, Jr., Red Bluff, under appointment by Third District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Doris Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger Venturi, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
Ernest Al Boles was convicted by a jury of the crime of receiving stolen property. He has appealed from the judgment which was entered and from the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial. The latter is now a nonappealable order. (Pen.Code, sec. 1237.)
The owner of a men's wear store in Red Bluff discovered on the morning of February 4, 1963, that during the weekend some merchandise had been taken from the store.
The defendant and three other young men had been in the store the previous Saturday afternoon. Two of the young men entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary and the third entered a plea of guilty to the crime of receiving stolen property.
Boles had been staying at a hotel in Red Bluff under the supervision of a parole officer of the California Youth Authority. The officer discovered a quantity of new clothing in the room of another parolee. Boles' room at the hotel was searched after he had checked out and pair of jeans similar to those taken in the burglary was found under a blanket in the dresser drawer and also a sweater was hidden under the mattress. Boles was wearing a pair of jeans similar to those taken. At the police station Boles was questioned by Lt. Schoelen of the Red Bluff Police Department who testified that the statements given by Boles were free and voluntary, without promise of reward or threat of punishment. Boles denied at first any knowledge of the burglary. The officer told Boles that he was going to get to the 'bottom of this' and that he was going to book Boles for burglary.
The following appears in the testimony of Lt. Schoelen:
Boles then admitted to the police officer that he had first seen the stolen articles when the two young men who committed the burglary knocked on his door about 10 p. m. and asked if they could put the articles in his hotel room. Boles said, 'No.' Later he went to another room in the hotel where the burglars were and saw clothing scattered all over. He knew the articles were stolen. Boles accepted a pair of trousers. In a second conversation with the police he reiterated the earlier statements and admitted wearing a pair of boots, and stated he had learned before he left the hotel room that all of the articles had come from the clothing store.
Boles testified that he had completed about one year of high school. He denied participation in the burglary. He said he got the trousers on the morning of the day he checked out of the hotel. He testified that the trousers were lying on the floor of his room and he just slipped them on. Boles testified that when he made the statement to the police officer he was under the impression he would not be charged with a crime if he did make the statement.
Appellant's major contention is that the court committed prejudicial error in admitting appellant's confession. Appellant argues that the confession was involuntary since it was induced by a promise of benefit by a police officer to the appellant, and the presumption of such improper influence continues to act through subsequent conversations. We have concluded that this contention must be sustained.
As stated in People v. Brommel, 56 Cal.2d 629, 632, 15 Cal.Rptr. 909, 910, 364 P.2d 845, 846: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Johnson
...168, 57 Cal.Rptr. 163, 424 P.2d 715; People v. Brommel, Supra, 56 Cal.2d 629, 634, 15 Cal.Rptr. 909, 364 P.2d 845; People v. Boles, 221 Cal.App.2d 455, 459, 34 Cal.Rptr. 528.) The Attorney General relies on language in Fahy v. Connecticut, Supra, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171, b......
-
Buccheri, Application of
...he would book defendant for burglary unless officer could check defendant's story and get to bottom of matter, People v. Boles, 221 Cal.App.2d 455, 34 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1963); police chief's statement that a confession would avoid death penalty, State v. Nelson, 63 N.M. 428, 321 P.2d 202 (1958......
-
State v. Tardiff
...Pressley, 266 N.C. 663, 147 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1966); People v. Lettrich, 413 Ill. 172, 108 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1952); People v. Boles, 221 Cal.App.2d 455, 34 Cal.Rptr. 528, 530 (1963). In determining whether a confession was the product of improper inducements, all of the circumstances attending ......
-
People v. Falk
...Jones, 24 Cal.2d 601, 609, 150 P.2d 801; People v. Brommel, 56 Cal.2d 629, 634, 15 Cal.Rptr. 909, 364 P.2d 845; People v. Boles, 221 Cal.App.2d 455, 459--460, 34 Cal.Rptr. 528; People v. Manriquez, 231 Cal.App.2d 725, 730, 42 Cal.Rptr. 157. Contra, United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 540-......