People v. Hood
| Decision Date | 06 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1201 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clarence HOOD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Clarence Hood in pro. per. and LeRoy Snyder, Jr., Fresno, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was charged with armed robbery in an information containing two counts, in the first of which it was alleged that on or about August 1, 1955, he, while armed with a deadly weapon, did wilfully and unlawfully rob one Buddy Glendale Boggess. In count two similar armed robbery of one Robert R. Araujo was alleged to have been committed by appellant on or about June 20, 1955. A jury trial was had which resulted in a verdict of guilty as to count two and a disagreement as to count one. The trial court ordered a mistrial as to count one and judgment of conviction was entered by the court as to count two. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. Defendant appeals from the judgment thereupon entered and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
On June 20, 1955, Robert L. Araujo was working as a service station attendant on the 3:00 p. m. to midnight shift at a station in Fresno. He testified at the trial that at about 11:30 p. m., while he was in the process of closing up and was near the front door of the station, he saw 'this fellow' approach him from the back; that the man was about two feet away and told him to open the door to the office. Araujo hesitated and he was again ordered to open the door. After he had opened it, he entered the office and the man followed directly behind him. Araujo walked to the cash box and the man at the time had his hands on a revolver under his shirt. Araujo was ordered to open the cash box and when he hesitated, the man said 'Damn it, open it.' After Araujo had opened the cash box, he was ordered to step back and the man then started taking the money out of the cash drawer. Araujo further testified that he had about $50 in the cash box; that the man was holding the gun 'right out in front of him but aiming it right at me'; that after taking the money out of the cash box, the man ordered him to sit down, facing the wall, and said, 'Don't make a funny move or I will blow your brains out', and then left the station; that while the gun was being pointed at him, he observed that it was a small nickel plated revolver. When asked if he would know the man who 'put the gun on him and took his money' if he saw him again, he answered in the affirmative and pointed out the defendant to the jury. He stated that he identified the defendant by a black mole on his face and stated he saw him at the city jail while he was being questioned shortly after his arrest; that he recognized the defendant's voice because 'he had a stuttering way of talking' and from his observation of him at the jail, he then knew him to be the man who had held him up at the service station on June 20th.
The defendant testified at the trial that he had never seen Araujo before and that he was never in the service station; that he did not remember where he was on the night of June 20, 1955, and stated that he never had a gun in his possession. Several witnesses for the defense testified as to the whereabouts of the defendant on August 1, 1955, to the effect he was gambling near the Hideaway Cafe in Fresno at the time of the alleged robbery. However, no evidence was offered by the defendant as to his whereabouts on the night of June 20, 1955, other than his statement that he probably was at the camp where he resided.
The opening brief herein was filed by the appellant in propria persona and in it he contends that the evidence of his identification by the prosecuting witness at the city jail was inadmissible as hearsay; that there was no proof that the prosecuting witness told the truth; that the prosecuting witness' testimony concerning the defendant's gun was impeached by his own statements at the preliminary hearing; that the court erred in not ordering the jury to view the scene of the crime; that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant because there was no proof that he committed the crime; that the court erred in not instructing the jury on the usual 'line up' procedure and in merely having the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Floyd
...in the witness' mind. (People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560 ; United States v. Forzano, 190 F.2d 687, 689; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588 ; People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 ; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 1130, p. 208.) The failure of the witness to repe......
-
Bedford v. State
...(People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560 (191 P.2d 1); United States v. Forzano, (2 Cir.), 190 F.2d 687, 689; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588 (295 P.2d 525); People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 (259 P.2d 476); 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 1130, p. 208.) The fa......
-
People v. Gould
...People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560, 191 P.2d 1; United States v. Forzano, 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 687, 689; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588, 295 P.2d 525; People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226, 259 P.2d 476; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 1130, p. 208. The failure of......
-
Brown v. Maxwell
...one accused of a crime must be placed with a group of persons and selected therefrom as the guilty party by witnesses. People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 295 P.2d 525; People v. Fort, 14 Ill.2d 491, 153 N.E.2d 56; People v. Matthews, 359 Ill. 171, 194 N.E. 220; and People v. Crenshaw, 15 I......