People v. Carlson

Decision Date18 January 1960
Docket NumberCr. 6763
Citation2 Cal.Rptr. 117,177 Cal.App.2d 201
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifford CARLSON and Floyd Stockdale, Defendants, Floyd Stockdale, Defendant and Appellant.

William Herbert Hall, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ASHBURN, Justice.

Defendants were found guilty of robbery of the first degree as charged. Stockdale alone prosecutes this appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial and from the judgment and sentence, contending that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he participated in the robbery by aiding and abetting. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury on the transcript of the preliminary examination and additional testimony taken at the trial.

The record discloses these facts: At about 11:20 p.m. on October 8, 1958, three men entered Doc's Liquor Store in Monrovia. They were later identified as Carlson, Gindrat and the appellant Stockdale. Frank Thomas, the clerk, approached the men and asked if he could be of assistance. Carlson immediately pulled a gun from his pocket and said, 'Buddy, just open it up, the cash register.' Mr. Thomas complied. As he did so, Gindrat took Thomas by the neck and at gunpoint forced him into a back room. Thomas testified that appellant watched but did not speak during these proceedings, but as he was being taken into the back room, he, Thomas, glanced back and saw Carlson and appellant move forward in the direction of the cash register, 'like they were going around in back of the counter.' He does not know what took place after that for he was then escorted into the back room from which there was no view of the store. There he was made to sit on the floor, with the gun held to his head. Gindrat went through his pockets and removed his wallet.

Thomas testified that the store was equipped with a device which caused a bell to ring whenever some one passed through the door; that while he was in the back room with Gindrat, some four or five minutes he heard the bell ring twice, 'indicating that the two other fellows had left.' Gindrat called out, 'How about it? Are you through out there?' or words to that effect, and, receiving no answer, left, admonishing Thomas not to move. Thomas then heard the bell ring, got up and notified the police, giving them a description of the men and of the vehicle which he had seen drive past the store and stop immediately before the three men entered. He did not open the cash register until the police arrived, when it was discovered that all of the money and the cash drawer were missing.

Within ten minutes after the robbery two patrol officers of the Arcadia Police Department, who had received a radio broadcast from the Monrovia Police, spotted the vehicle and took the men into custody. Gindrat was driving the car; Carlson was seated beside him, and appellant was 'crouched down across the back seat.' The officers testified that as they were pursuing the car, 'in the back seat someone was down and could not be seen, only seeing his head come up for a second.' The officers found in Carlson's pocket some $141 in cash and a loaded .25 Colt automatic. As these things were found, Carlson made the statement, 'How in hell did you bust us so quick?' and Gindrat said, 'Yeah, we haven't had time to split the money yet.' Appellant 'didn't say a word.' Cigarettes which were stolen were found in the back seat. A search of the car disclosed a plastic model of a .45 revolver under the left front seat, and the cash tray on the right-hand side.

There is no question raised concerning the commission of the robbery by defendant Carlson, and appellant admits that he entered the liquor store with the other two men. His contention is that he did not know that they intended to commit the robbery, that their testimony completely exculpated him, and that there is no evidence to support an inference that he knowingly aided or assisted them in the perpetration of the robbery with knowledge of the wrongful intention.

The defense testimony shows that there was an understanding between Carlson and Gindrat that they would stage a holdup if they found a likely place that 'looked all right.' However, both Carlson and appellant insist that nothing was ever said in the presence of appellant concerning any plans to commit a robbery, nor did he know of the presence of the guns; that appellant was not told or consulted about any plans for a holdup.

Appellant testified that when Carlson pulled his gun in the liquor store and demanded the money, he was shocked and scared; that as the clerk was being taken into the back room he left the building and went to the car. He got into the back seat so he could 'stretch out or lay down' because he was extremely nervous. When asked by the court, 'Why didn't you take off down the street or any other direction? If you were innocent, why didn't you go look for the first policemen and tell them you were framed?' he replied: 'For the very simple fact I was scared. I was nervous. I didn't know where I was at and I was going to take my best chance of getting back home.'

Appellant relies upon People v. Hill, 77 Cal.App.2d 287, 175 P.2d 45, for the proposition that his mere presence at the scene of the robbery will not establish his guilt as an abettor.

Penal Code, § 31, provides: '* * * All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission * * * are principals in any crime so committed.'

The question, therefore, is whether the evidence reasonably justifies the court's conclusion that appellant was present for the purpose of assisting in the consummation of the robbery. 'Appellant's statement that he did not know that a crime was to be committed is not sufficient to constitute irrebuttable proof of such fact. 'Few criminals would ever be convicted if their explanations were accepted as gospel truth.' People v. Hall, 87 Cal.App. 634, 262 P. 50.' People v. Jaggers, 120 Cal.App. 733, 735, 8 P.2d 206, 207. The testimony of both Carlson and appellant was impeached by their admissions that they had each been convicted of three felonies. Code Civ.Proc. § 2051; People v. Grischott, 107 Cal.App.2d 631, 634, 237 P.2d 712; People v. Jackson, 167 Cal.App.2d 270, 273, 334 P.2d 114.

'One may aid and abet without having previously entered into a conspiracy to commit a crime. People v. Bond, 1910, 13 Cal.App. 175, 185-186, 109 P. 150; People v. Wade, 1945, 71 Cal.App.2d 646, 652, 163 P.2d 59.

'While mere presence alone of the accused at the scene of the homicide is not sufficient to make him a participant, nor is he necessarily guilty because he does not prevent it, his presence is a circumstance tending to support a finding that he is a principal. In order to have aided and abetted the person who actually committed the unlawful act, facts and circumstances must be adduced, tending to show that the accused aided such person by acts, or encouraged him by words or gestures, before a conviction can be sustained. 12 A.L.R. 279, 280, 281. Not only must he aid such direct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • People v. Morga
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1969
    ..."Few criminals would ever be convicted if their explanations were accepted as gospel truth.' (Citation.)' (People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 201, 204, 2 Cal.Rptr. 117, 120.) It cannot be said that the trial court had no substantial basis for finding Morga guilty upon the theory that h......
  • People v. Laster
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 1971
    ...U.S. 968, 89 S.Ct. 2116, 23 L.Ed.2d 755; People v. Lee (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 36, 40, 20 Cal.Rptr. 360; and People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 201, 205--207, 2 Cal.Rptr. 117.) It is a circumstance to consider together with the accused's companionship and his conduct before and after the......
  • State v. Cummings
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1967
    ...and left when they left, was present at the robbery, and apparently acquiesced therein.' To the same effect is People v. Carlson, 177 Cal.App.2d 201, 2 Cal.Rptr. 117. In view of the foregoing, we can only conclude that there was more than enough substantial evidence adduced at the trial of ......
  • People v. Adams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 1968
    ...185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 8 Cal.Rptr. 607; People v. Maudlin (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 5 Cal.Rptr. 243; People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 201, 205--206, 2 Cal.Rptr. 117; People v. Beaulieu (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 536, 540, 301 P.2d 304; and People v. Jaggers (1932) 120 Cal.App. 733......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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