People v. Ketchum

Decision Date25 October 1960
Docket NumberCr. N
Citation185 Cal.App.2d 615,8 Cal.Rptr. 607
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernest Harrison KETCHUM, Defendant and Appellant. o. 6660.

Ernest Harrison Ketchum, in pro. per.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller and Clara E. Kauffman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

WOOD, Presiding Justice.

Defendant Ketchum was accused of robbery which was committed on May 17, 1958. He denied an allegation of the information that he had been convicted of grand theft about February 17, 1956. In a nonjury trial herein he was convicted of robbery of the first degree. The reporter's transcript shows that the trial judge said that 'the prior is good--there is nothing wrong with the prior.' The minutes of the court state that no disposition was made as to the prior conviction. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison, and it was ordered that the sentence run consecutively with the sentence in the prior case wherein probation was revoked. Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence, and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.

Mr. Gaglio, who was employed as a bell-boy at the Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica, testified that on May 17, 1958, about 12:15 a. m., while he was in the hotel lobby and about 20 feet from the hotel entrance, he saw the defendant come 'through the entrance' into the lobby and go toward the men's room; when defendant was passing by the witness the distance between them was about one foot; defendant was wearing khaki pants and a lumber jacket; the witness looked at defendant 'because of the way he was dressed'; after defendant had been in the hotel about five minutes he came from the direction of the men's room, went past the witness, and left the hotel; about twenty minutes thereafter four men came into the lobby--two of them had guns (a .38 and a .45) and two were wearing false noses; 'they' said 'This is a stick-up'; at that time the witness was standing near the hotel desk, and the defendant who was one of the four men stood in front of and about a foot from the witness; defendant was facing the witness and the entrance to the hotel; he did not have a gun and was not wearing a mask or false nose; defendant knocked a cigarette from the witness' hand; one of the other men 'went over the desk.'

Mrs. Duncan, an employee of the hotel, testified that on said May 17, about 12:30 a.m., while she was at the hotel desk sorting cards, she saw the defendant come through the front door into the lobby, walk slowly in front of the desk and toward the bar and men's room; the front door is about 25 feet from the desk; defendant was wearing a tan jacket and tan pants; about twenty minutes later, while she was standing behind the desk, she saw the defendant and three other men come through the front door into the lobby; they walked fast and went 'right to the front desk'; two of the men were wearing false noses 'with glasses,' and two of them were not masked; the defendant, who was not masked, stood next to Mr. Gaglio (bell-boy) who was working on the bulletin board which was about 6 feet from her (witness); one man, who was holding a gun, stood at the left of her; another man, who was holding a gun, stood at the right of her; the other man jumped over the desk and went to the safe and the cash drawer.

Mr. Belanger, the hotel auditor, testified that on said May 17, about 12:45 a.m., while he was on duty at the hotel desk, four men entered the hotel and came to the desk; two of the men were masked; one of the masked men pointed a gun at him and said, 'This is a stick-up. We want your money.'; that man also told him to 'get in the safe'; the witness replied that he did not have a key; that man said, 'You had better get in fast.'; the witness went to the cash drawer, and then a man, who was not masked, jumped over the desk, ran to the drawer and scooped the money out of it, and jumped 'back over the desk'; then the four men ran out the front door. The amount taken from the drawer was $251. He also testified that, while the four men were in the hotel and 'this was going on,' Mrs. Duncan (switchboard operator) was behind the desk, and that Mr. Gaglio (bell-boy) was in front of the desk.

Defendant testified that he was arrested on June 11, 1958; he was not at the Miramar Hotel on May 16 or 17, 1958, or at any time; he did not remember where he was on Friday night, May 16, 1958, or on Saturday morning, May 17, 1958; during a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Adams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 1968
    ...213 Cal.App.2d 63, 66, 28 Cal.Rptr. 546; People v. Navarro (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 299, 304, 27 Cal.Rptr. 716; People v. Ketchum (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 8 Cal.Rptr. 607; People v. Maudlin (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 5 Cal.Rptr. 243; People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 201, 205......
  • People v. Bishop
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1988
    ...162, 169, 300 P.2d 25; accord People v. Masters, supra, 219 Cal.App.2d 672 at p. 680, 33 Cal.Rptr. 383; People v. Ketchum (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 8 Cal.Rptr. 607.) Assuming that knowledge and intent can be demonstrated (see People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560, 199 Cal.Rptr. 6......
  • People v. Campbell
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1994
    ...and watch out for others who might approach. Such conduct is a textbook example of aiding and abetting. (People v. Ketchum (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 8 Cal.Rptr. 607; People v. Silva (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 162, 169, 300 P.2d 25.) Thus, the evidence, in our view, reasonably indicates tha......
  • People v. A.B. (In re A.B.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 2018
    ...[and] fled with them [to the train platform]. . . . That is sufficient to make [her] a participant in the crime.'" (People v. Ketchum (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619.) "Among the factors which may be considered in determining aiding and abetting are: presence at the crime scene, companionshi......
  • 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