People v. Faught
Decision Date | 22 October 1981 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 177 Cal.Rptr. 637,124 Cal.App.3d 848 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. David H. FAUGHT, Defendant and Appellant. o. 5131. |
This is an appeal and cross-appeal following a conviction of a violation of Penal Code section 12021, ex-felon in possession of a concealable weapon.
In a criminal information filed March 24, 1980, defendant David H. Faught was charged with assault with intent to commit rape (Pen.Code, § 220); it was alleged that a .38 caliber revolver was used in the offense (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). Count Two charged defendant as an ex-felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12021. The information further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of grand theft in violation of Penal Code section 487 and had served a prison term and was released from custody on March 19, 1978.
Defendant admitted the prior conviction. At the first trial on the charges, the jury found defendant not guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charge, so a mistrial was declared as to count two, ex-felon in possession of a firearm.
Out of the presence of the jury, on the first day of the second trial, defendant offered to stipulate to the prior conviction on the condition it not be introduced as part of the People's case. The People opposed the stipulation and the trial court refused to compel the stipulation.
Following the district attorney's opening statement, the defendant moved for a mistrial which was denied. As a corrective measure defendant sought to introduce evidence of his prior acquittal, the request was denied.
Defendant was convicted and sentenced to state prison for the middle term of two years. The court declined to impose any enhancement for the prior conviction, holding that it could not be used to enhance since it was part of the substantive offense.
Defendant filed notice of this appeal; the People filed notice of a cross-appeal.
On May 5, 1980, Caroline Barker was living with her son at 1609 Locke Road in Modesto. At approximately 10 p. m. that night Vincent Avana and his father Lee Avana and defendant David Faught arrived at her home. Lee Avana was drunk and Faught and Vincent Avana had been drinking. Caroline was not previously acquainted with Faught or Lee Avana.
Vincent Avana left to go to a nearby store. Faught and Lee Avana left the house with him but Faught returned shortly thereafter.
According to Caroline Barker, Faught made a pass at her and Caroline left her house to go to a neighbor's in an adjacent unit. At about 10:30 Betty McAtee and Mary Beaudoin heard a female yelling for help. McAtee opened the door eight to ten inches and saw a man outside with his arm extended. She did not see his hand and was unable to see any gun in his possession. The police were called. The women heard a noise, McAtee thought it was a rock hitting the door, Beaudoin thought it was a gun. McAtee was unable to make a positive identification of defendant as the person she had viewed.
Barker testified at trial that as she was on her neighbor's porch she turned around and saw Faught behind her, on the Barker porch. Faught told her to get back to her house. He approached her with a gun in his hand. He directed the neighbors to close the door and stated he would shoot if they opened it. He then fired once in the air.
Barker testified that Faught told her to call the neighbors and ask them not to call the police. He mentioned that if the police came she would be the first to go.
Barker testified when Vincent Avana returned he told Faught to give him the gun, and to calm down. Faught refused but went outside with Vincent. When the police arrived, Barker (due to defendant's threats) took her son and slipped out a back door and hid in some bushes in the vicinity of her apartment.
About 11 p. m. that night, another neighbor, Michael Perrine, who lived at 1531 Locke Road, saw defendant in Perrine's front yard ducking behind a hedge, peering over it at police officers down the street. Perrine went to get his father and when he returned, defendant was gone. At about 11:10 p. m., Modesto police officer Jim Sanders contacted Perrine and after Perrine pointed defendant out as the latter walked down Locke Road in front of 1527 Locke, Sanders arrested defendant. Defendant had no firearm on his person. Shortly after 11 p. m., Modesto police officer Curtis Tankersley found a .38 caliber handgun in the hedge area of 1601 Locke the weapon was not dusty or dirty and contained four live rounds and one empty cartridge. At trial, Caroline identified that gun as appearing to be the one defendant had in his hand that night.
Faught testified that he had not possessed or used a gun on the night in question. Upon seeing the police vehicle he ran because he was trying to evade a misdemeanor warrant for disturbing the peace.
Vincent and Lee testified that they had not seen Faught with a gun that night.
Officer Lee Greutzmacher who interviewed Caroline on the night of the incident recalled several statements made by her which contradicted her trial testimony. Caroline had told Officer Greutzmacher that Faught had pointed a gun at her chest, that he had held both hands on the gun, that he had placed the gun in his waistband on other occasions, and that he had told her to return to the apartment or he would kill her. On cross-examination Caroline testified he had held the gun in one hand, no threat on her life was mentioned, she did not remember seeing a gun in the waistband, and she did not testify to defendant pointing the gun at her chest.
Prior to trial, defendant offered a stipulation that he had been convicted of a felony, so as to preclude the People from introducing such evidence. The stipulation was framed as follows:
At the time of the defense request, People v. Sherren (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 752, 152 Cal.Rptr. 828, was the sole direct authority in aid of defendant's position. Deeming contrary authority more persuasive, the trial court refused to require the People to accept the stipulation.
The jury was informed of the prior felony by stipulation, and by the court's mention of the fact three times at the opening of the trial. The court stated:
A jury instruction also alluded to the prior.
Two months after trial, the Supreme Court filed People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 167 Cal.Rptr. 844, 616 P.2d 826, which held that in a prosecution for violating Penal Code section 12021, the element of a prior conviction of a felony may not be given to the jury if the accused stipulates to it, unless the state can demonstrate that application of the rule will impair the People's case or preclude the presentation of alternative theories of guilt. We must decide whether Hall should be applied retroactively, and if so, whether one of the exceptions applies to the instant case, and if not, whether the error was prejudicial.
In regard to the issue of retroactivity, the law is well summarized in People v. Cooper (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 672, 156 Cal.Rptr. 646:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Guerra
...in a number of contexts. (See, e.g., People v. Hickman (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 365, 369-370, 179 Cal.Rptr. 541; People v. Faught (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-857, 177 Cal.Rptr. 637; People v. Cooper (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 672, 680, 156 Cal.Rptr. 646; People v. Whittington (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d......
-
People v. Gutierrez
...667.7. The law is to the contrary. (People v. Gaines (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 508, 515, 169 Cal.Rptr. 381; People v. Faught (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 848, 859-860, 177 Cal.Rptr. 637; People v. Bruno (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1102, 237 Cal.Rptr. 31; People v. Levell (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 749, 752-754, ......
-
People v. Cobb
...792.) His stipulation to ex-felon status did not shield appellant from impeachment when he testified. (People v. Faught (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 848, 857, 177 Cal.Rptr. 637.) There was a question whether appellant saw the officers' approaching vehicle prior to the time he rapidly drove away. H......
-
State v. Leonard
...158 Cal.App.3d 1151, 205 Cal.Rptr. 232 (1984); People v. Hickman, 127 Cal.App.3d 365, 179 Cal.Rptr. 541 (1981); People v. Faught, 124 Cal.App.3d 848, 177 Cal.Rptr. 637 (1981); People v. Green, 117 Cal.App.3d 199, 172 Cal.Rptr. 582 (1981). This approach has been abrogated by constitutional a......