People v. Edmond

Citation19 Cal.Rptr. 302,200 Cal.App.2d 278
Decision Date14 February 1962
Docket NumberCr. 3207
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie Obie EDMOND, Defendant and Appellant.

Stanley G. Lerner, under appointment by the Third Dist. Court of Appeal, Carmichael, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Nat Agliano, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.

PEEK, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict finding him guilty of five counts of robbery in the first degree.

Upon defendant's request this court appointed counsel to assist him in his appeal. After an examination of the record and discussions with defendant, counsel informed the court that he found no error upon which a meritorious appeal could be based. Thereafter, defendant filed an opening brief, which was followed by a supplemental breif, as well as a clsoing brief. Our examination of the briefs, which defendant filed in his own behalf, and of the record on appeal compels the same conclusion as reached by counsel, that defendant's appeal is wholly without merit.

Defendant's primary contention relates to comments by the district attorney concerning his failure to testify and to deny or explain facts within his own knowledge, and the instructions given by the trial court on this issue. He further complains of the failure of his counsel to object to such comments and instructions. Finally, he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly his identification as the perpetrator of the crimes charged.

Turning first to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, the information charged defendant with five counts of robbery of four bars and one cafe, all located in Sacramento and occurring during the months of May, June, and July of 1960. In each instance the victims testified that the robber was a Negro wearing a light colored trench coat and a soft hat of light color, variously described as a 'pork-pie' or 'alpine' type hat, who entered their establishments carrying a gun and forcibly took money from their possession. He was described by the victims variously as being from 30 to 40 years of age, of stocky build, 5 feet 9 inches to 5 feet 11 inches tall, and weighing from 175 to 200 pounds. Four of the victims testified that he was soft-spoken, and three of them particularly noted that he had a decidedly distinguishable gait or stance. Each of the victims identified him in a police lineup and again at the trial as the man who had committed the robberies. At the time of his arrest he denied having been in Sacramento at any time during the past year. This statement was directly refuted by the testimony of two witnesses who had seen him in that city during the month of August. He consented to a search of his residence where he was staying with a brother. A trench coat and some hats were found. He denied ownership of the coat, saying it belonged to his brother. However, the brother, who was present, stated that they both used the coat. A search was also made at the home of his girl friend where defendant stated he had been staying. There, also, a trench coat and hats were found. One of the hats was later introduced in evidence. He was also asked what type of whiskey he drank and he replied that he drank Scotch. Evidence was introduced that he had taken this type of whiskey from some of his victims. The only difference noticed by the five victims in their identification was that the defendant at the trial wore a mustache which he did not have at the time of the robberies. The evidence as summarized more than amply supported the conclusion of the jury.

The cases relied upon by defendant in support of his first contention are wholly inapplicable. All were decided prior to the amendments to the Constitution (art. I, sec. 13) and the applicable Penal Code sections (secs. 1093, subd. 6, Comment, and 1127, Instructions). The rule now is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Perry v. Rushen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 26, 1983
    ...Cal. 39, 223 P. 65 (1924), overruled on other grounds, People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409, 317 P.2d 974 (1957); People v. Edmond, 200 Cal.App.2d 278, 19 Cal.Rptr. 302 (1962); People v. Arline, 13 Cal.App.3d 200, 91 Cal.Rptr. 520 Three times during the course of the trial the judge considere......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 29, 1970
    ...committed the crime and that he himself is innocent. (People v. Erno (1925) 195 Cal. 272, 279, 232 P. 710; People v. Edmond (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 278, 281, 19 Cal.Rptr. 302.) Here the defense offered the hearsay statement of a third person who had allegedly confessed to the crime for which ......
  • Perry v. Watts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 17, 1981
    ...of the evidence. See also People v. Buono, 191 Cal.App.2d 203, 12 Cal.Rptr. 604, 617-19 (1961). In People v. Edmond, 200 Cal.App.2d 278, 228-29, 19 Cal.Rptr. 302 (1962), the trial court struck the testimony of a defense witness concerning other robberies that had been committed in the area ......
  • People v. Guillebeau
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1980
    ...be some competent and substantial evidence of a probability that the other person is guilty of the offense. (People v. Edmond (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 278, 281, 19 Cal.Rptr. 302; People v. Buono (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 203, 228, 12 Cal.Rptr. In determining if such evidence should be admitted, th......
  • 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