People v. Crisafi

• Decision Date: 23 December 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 7155
• Citation: 10 Cal.Rptr. 155,187 Cal.App.2d 700
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Nicholas CRISAFI, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 155

10 Cal.Rptr. 155

187 Cal.App.2d 700

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Nicholas CRISAFI, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 7155.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Dec. 23, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1961.

Hearing Denied Feb. 15, 1961.

Frank Duncan and Elinor Chandler Katz, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Sweet, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOURT, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and the denial of a motion for a new trial in a proceeding wherein the defendant was found guilty of rape and kidnapping.

In an information filed in Los Angeles County it was charged that appellant, on or about July 26, 1959, violated the provisions of Penal Code, § 261, subd. 3 (rape) and the provisions of Penal Code, § 207 (kidnapping). It was also charged that appellant had suffered a previous conviction of a felony in California in 1958 and served a term therefor. Appellant admitted the prior conviction and pleaded not guilty to the rape and kidnapping charges. A jury, after a trial, found appellant guilty on both counts. A motion for a new trial was denied. Probation was denied and appellant was sentenced. The appeal is from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

A resume of the facts is as follows:

A 23-year old married lady, hereinafter referred to as the victim, resided in Seal Beach and was employed by a physician and surgeon in Long Beach. At about 8:00 p. m. Saturday, July 25, 1959, she drove from her home to Wilmington to visit some friends. The victim left her friends' house at about 11:30 p. m. and started to drive home. She stopped at a bar named 'The Nineteenth Hole' which was located on Anaheim Street in Long Beach. As she left the bar at about 1:40 a. m., July 26, 1959, she walked toward her car which was parked at the curb nearby. As she did so a car, driven by the appellant, pulled up and stopped. He asked the victim if a lady named Judy was in the bar and the victim, after asking some questions about whether the person referred to as Judy would have been alone, answered the appellant to the effect that such a person was not in the bar. Appellant then asked the victim if she would take $75 to come with him. The victim, after refusing any offers of appellant, walked to her car, got into the driver's seat, and had the keys to the car in her hand preparatory to starting the motor when the appellant pulled his car in front of the victim's car, got out of his car and came to the driver's side of the victim's car. Appellant then said to the victim that if she 'wouldn't take the $75, then how much would' it be 'for a kiss.' Appellant was told by the victim to leave her alone, whereupon he reached through the open window and grabbed the victim's car ignition keys, put his arm around the victim and kissed her. The victim attempted to pull away and appellant slapped her and told her to settle down and not to fight him. Appellant then told the victim to come with him or he would kill her. The victim was frightened and afraid, she cried and could not scream. She got out of her car and started to walk toward the rear of her car and the appellant told her 'not to try to get away' and said he would kill her if she tried to leave. The victim had left her purse in her car and started back to the front seat of her automobile to secure her purse. Appellant grabbed her by the arm and asked where and why she was going and the victim answered to the effect that she was going to get her purse which had some money in it. The victim got into appellant's automobile and he then drove several blocks into a residential district of Long Beach and parked the car at the curb. Appellant then pulled at the wearing apparel of the victim. The victim was crying and stated to appellant that she was not going to fight him because she was very much afraid. The appellant then committed an act of sexual intercourse with the victim. Appellant thereafter started his automobile and drove in the general direction of where the victim's car was parked. He took her purse and went through the items therein and by his questions put to the victim indicated to her that he was a policeman. Appellant asked, among other things, if the victim used narcotics and she answered in the negative and appellant said, 'Well, we know that you have been. We have been onto you for a long'--long time and took her arm and looked at it, apparently for needle marks. The appellant told the victim that his name was Jack Cooper and when asked if he was a police officer the appellant neither denied it nor said that he was such and told the victim to 'shut up' and at the same time reached with his right hand into the left side of his jacket. The appellant drove his automobile near to where the victim's car was parked and stopped. The victim was told by appellant that a 'blond fellow' was going to use the same approach or do the same thing to her. He then, upon the victim's request, returned the victim's keys and purse to her and she thereupon got out of the car. As she did so the appellant said he wanted to pay her and threw a lighted cigarette out of his car onto the ground and reached into his pocket and then threw a 'crumpled piece of paper or a bill onto the park grass' and told the victim to pick it up. She demurred to picking up the paper and the appellant again said, 'Pick it up' and the victim picked up the cigarette instead, walked behind the appellant's car and threw down the cigarette. While behind appellant's car she secured the make and number of appellant's automobile. In answer to a question by the victim the appellant stated in effect that he had picked her up because she had come from the bar alone.

By this time in the course of events it was about 2:30 a. m. and the bar was closed. The victim got into her car and drove a few blocks to a bar named the Rose Room where the victim knew the owner, waitress and bartender. At the Rose Room at the hour of about 2:30 a. m. on July 26, 1959 the victim was in a hysterical condition and kept asking someone to write down the number of appellant's car and told the bartender and three other persons who were there that she had been raped. The victim then went to her home in Seal Beach and told her husband what had occurred. The police were called and the victim talked to them.

Officer Morrill of the Long Beach Police visited appellant's house on July 30, 1959 and was told by appellant's wife who was known to the police that the appellant was not at home. The officer did not tell the appellant's wife that he wanted to talk to him about the rape which had occurred on July 26th, but stated that he wanted to see appellant about some thefts from some mail boxes. Appellant appeared at the police station about 4:00 a. m. July 31, 1959. When asked where he had been on the night of July 25th and early morning of July 26th, appellant stated that he had been home from 11:00 p. m. that night until late the following day.

Later, on July 31st, Officer Morrill again talked to appellant and appellant was told that a woman had been raped on the morning of July 26th and that the license number of his car had been obtained. Appellant stated that he could prove where he had been at 11:00 p.m. Saturday night and the officer told appellant that he had not mentioned 11:00. The officer then asked appellant where he had been on the night and early morning of July 26th and 26th. Appellant stated that he had no idea about where he had been; that he paid no attention to the time; that he could not obtain a fair trial in the city; that he wanted to defend himself and then said, 'That woman hadn't been hurt, had she?' Appellant then said that he 'was a lot smarter this time than he was before, [and] that he had been studying a lot of rape cases.'

On August 3, 1959, Officer Morrill had another talk with the appellant in the presence of the lieutenant in charge of the jail and the appellant said that Morrill had in effect framed him by showing his picture to the victim and then finding the number of the appellant's automobile and advising her of such number. Officer Morrill then asked appellant 'if he could give--the name of any person that he knew in this town or in San Quentin who had been convicted of'--'If he could give me the name of any person who had been convicted of a crime that he didn't commit,' and the appellant answered that he could not. The officer then asked appellant, 'if he knew of anyone who had been tried for an offense and acquitted at a trial--even though that person had in fact committed the offense.' The appellant laughed and said, 'Yes, me.' The officer started to testify as to what the appellant had then told him concerning an offense for which he (appellant) was tried in 1957 and an objection thereto was sustained and the court directed the jury to disregard any reference to any statement about the state prison.

The prosecution introduced the testimony of a lady who was allegedly involved in an episode with the appelllant in 1957. She stated that she met the appellant in the afternoon of a day in September, 1957 when he had come to look at some property on Loma Vista Drive in Long Beach which she had for sale or lease. Appellant introduced himself on that occasion as Mr. Lindstrom, stating that he was a recently graduated pharmacist and was looking for a house for his family....