People v. Huston
| Decision Date | 04 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2795 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lloyd HUSTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
David G. McInnes, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by William O. Minor, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Lloyd Huston was charged with the crime of robbery, the information alleging that he forcibly took from the person of one Earl Zumwalt $70 in money and a Bulova wrist watch of the value of $50 by means of force and fear. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty by the jury of the crime of robbery in the first degree. His application for probation and his motion for a new trial were denied and judgment was pronounced. He has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Appellant wrote a letter to this court in which he attempted to set forth what he considers to be errors occurring during the course of the trial, and also stating that he did not have an attorney. This court appointed Mr. David G. McInnes, of the Sacramento Bar, to represent appellant on appeal. Mr. McInnes has informed this court that after a thorough review of the record it is his opinion that appellant had a fair trial and that there is no merit to this appeal.
Earl Zumwalt testified that he arrived in Willits, California, December 14, 1956, for a two-day holiday. After getting a room he went to Manney's, a bar, for a new drinks. He was in and out of Manney's bar all afternoon and had several beers. During this time he cashed a check which gave him a total of about $90 which he placed in his two front pockets. He met three women in Manney's, bought them drinks, and was generally careless with his money. The group attended various bars during the afternoon and were at Manney's or John's Lodge when appellant joined them. Zumwalt asked one of the women to drive him to Laytonville, but appellant told him that all the woman wanted was his money and that he would take him there in his car. Zumwalt left with appellant later in the evening.
At the time he had about $70 in his pockets, and his Bulova wrist watch. About four to six miles north of Willits appellant stopped at a wide spot in the road, pulled out a knife and stuck Zumwalt with it. Appellant said 'let's have it' and when Zumwalt replied 'what are you talking about?' appellant said 'the money.' The knife was a large hunting knife with a single blade, and when Zumwalt attempted to slap it aside his thumb was cut. Appellant took Zumwalt's watch off his arm. He bent the victim over the seat, held the knife on him, scratched his neck and reached into his pockets and took out the money. He said he should kill Zumwalt. Appellant made Zumwalt take off his shoes and belt, took some keys in Zumwalt's possession and after some time left the victim standing in the road.
After being picked up by a passing motorist, Zumwalt was taken to the police station in Willits and from there to the hospital where he was treated for a lacerated thumb. He had blood all over him. He immediately complained of the robbery to the police.
Appellant was arrested February 10, 1957, and two days later a police officer found the victim's watch on a woman at the residence of appellant.
Defendant testified that he drove Zumwalt toward Laytonville and they argued as to who would pay for the gasoline for the trip; that suddently Zumwalt hit him in the chest, and to protect himself he reached for a knife which he had in the glove compartment; that while he was withdrawing the knife Zumwalt reached for it and cut himself; that he started to push Zumwalt and they scuffled, and during the scuffle the band on Zumwalt's watch broke and the watch fell to the seat of the car; that Zumwalt reached into his own pocket and threw the bills on the seat. Defendant contended that he did not know the denomination of the bills. He denied any intent to rob Zumwalt. He asserted that he later attempted to locate Zumwalt for the purpose of returning his property.
The evidence as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williamson
...183 Cal.App.2d 861, 868, 7 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. Jackson (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 332, 339, 6 Cal.Rptr. 505; People v. Huston (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 363, 366, 329 P.2d 334.) Appellant contends, however, that the trial court's ruling was erroneous since the proffered testimony is admissible u......
-
People v. Green
...after trial. (People v. McFarlane (1903) 138 Cal. 481, 490, 71 P. 568; People v. Mortier (1881) 58 Cal. 262, 267; People v. Huston (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 363, 366, 329 P.2d 334.) The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that rule of waiver in People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 985-986, 13 Cal......
-
People v. Murdock
...be received over the objection of the prosecution because such statements would constitute inadmissible hearsay. See People v. Huston, 163 Cal.App.2d 363, 366, 329 P.2d 334; People v. Porter, 136 Cal.App.2d 461, 470, 288 P.2d 561. There is nothing to clearly indicate that the witness was at......
-
People v. Hannie
...be received over the objection of the prosecution because such statements would constitute inadmissible hearsay. See People v. Huston, 163 Cal.App.2d 363, 366, 329 P.2d 334.' The record in this case was not at all clear whether the question related to what was said at the time of the arrest......