People v. Cardinal

Decision Date31 October 1957
Docket NumberCr. 2787
Citation316 P.2d 1001,154 Cal.App.2d 835
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ray CARDINAL and Anthony Gomez, Defendants and Appellants.

Leo M. Cook, Ukiah, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and J. M. Sanderson, Deputies Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WARNE, Justice pro tem.

The appellants were charged with grand theft and convicted of petty theft by a jury. They appeal from an order denying a new trial and the judgment.

Appellants, who were partners in a salvage business, admitted that they dismantled and sold as scrap a loading shovel which they were charged with stealing. They testified that they had purchased the shovel from a stranger who purported to be the owner thereof, and there was introduced into evidence a receipt bearing the signature of 'W. H. Berry'. However, Mr. Berry was not produced as a witness. All of the evidence shows that the shovel was of a value exceeding $200.

Appellants, as ground for reversal, contend that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct.

Appellant Gomez testified he is a Spaniard and used the name 'Marino' in business to give the impression he was an Italian since 'Gomez' sounds like a Mexican name. Over objection, the district attorney elicited his admission that he had told a deputy sheriff that he had used the name when he registered at a motel with a 'girl friend' as he was a married man. Appellants assigned as error the injection into the case of evidence of appellant Gomez' extramarital affairs. Appellants also charged prejudicial misconduct upon the part of the district attorney in asking appellant Cardinal, 'Did you have any women living with you.'

Appellants argue that the lack of evidence that the property which they were charged with stealing was of value less than $200 'strongly indicates a 'compromise verdict', that the jury being in serious doubt as to the commission of grand theft by the defendants and yet prediced by the District Attorney's misconduct, decided that two such sexually immoral men should not go off scot-free and thus returned a verdict of petty theft.'

Gomez was only asked on direct examination, 'Have you used the name Marino in your business for sometime?' We feel that the district attorney went far outside the scope of permissible cross-examination in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Sweeney
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1960
    ...this showing of an extramarital affair was foreign to the case on trial and cannot be justified as impeachment (People v. Cardinal, 154 Cal.App.2d 835, 836-837, 316 P.2d 1001; People v. Burness, 53 Cal.App.2d 214, 220-221, 127 P.2d 623); and that this was a 'foul blow' struck by the distric......
  • Gomez v. Superior Court In and For Mendocino County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1958
    ...of Appeal reversed the judgment because of prejudicial misconduct on the part of the district attorney (People v. Cardinal, October 31, 1957, 154 Cal.App.2d 835, 316 P.2d 1001). From the opinion of the District Court of Appeal (154 Cal.App.2d 835, 316 P.2d 1001), it appears that petitioners......
  • Gomez v. Superior Court In and For Mendocino County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1958
    ...theft. They appealed from the ensuing judgment and the judgment was reversed for misconduct of the district attorney. People v. Cardinal, 154 Cal.App.2d 835, 316 P.2d 1001. Thereafter petitioners moved the respondent court to dismiss the charges as to grand theft upon the ground that they h......

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