People v. Laisne, Cr. 2851
| Decision Date | 16 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2851 |
| Citation | 163 Cal.App.2d 554,329 P.2d 725 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Victor E. LAISNE, Defendant and Appellant. |
T. N. Petersen, Merced, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and William O. Minor, Deputies Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By information defendant was charged with a violation of section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that he sold intoxicating liquor to a minor, thereby tending to cause the minor to lead an idle, dissolute, lewd and immoral life. The case was submitted on the record of the preliminary hearing supplemented by written argument of counsel. From the judgment of conviction which was thereafter entered, defendant appeals contending (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, and (2) that the court erred in excluding certain testimony and exhibits.
The record shows that on the evening of December 24, 1956, James, the minor, attended a party at a friend's home at which several persons between the ages of 16 and 20 were present. It was decided that some liquor should be obtained, and a collection was taken up for that purpose. James, with two other minors, drove to the Chateau Laisne, a bar and restaurant near Mariposa, which was owned and operated by the defendant. James purchased a fifth of vodka, two pints of bourbon and some beer. No request was made by the defendant for any identification, nor did James make any statement relative to his age. After the sale the boys returned to the party where the liquor was consumed. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, which was before Judge Thomas Coakley of the Superior court of Mariposa County, it was stipulated that the case would be submitted for decision upon the transcript of the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing and the written argument of counsel. Subsequently Judge Coakley disqualified himself, and the cause was submitted to Judge R. R. Sischo of Merced County.
It is defendant's first contention that since the final decision in the case was made by a judge who did not see or hear the witnesses but had only the written record bebore him, this court should therefore reweigh the evidence on appeal.
Here it should be noted that defendant was not compelled to submit the case for determination upon the evidence produced at the preliminary examination. Had he desired the judge to see the witnesses personally and hear the testimony he had every right to a court trial. To allow him now to attack the conclusion of the court on the very basis upon which he allowed it to be submitted would be to go far afield from the established rules of appellate practice. The rule so frequently quoted from People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 104 P.2d 778, is equally as applicable to this proceeding as it would be to one after a conventional hearing before a court or jury. In other words, the limited scope of review has been consistently followed in cases such as the present. See People v. Miller, 145 Cal.App.2d 473, 302 P.2d 603; People v. Smallfield, 131 Cal.App.2d 324, 280 P.2d 497; People v. Silva, 119 Cal.2d 421, 259 P.2d 74. Whether or not the act of defendant in selling James liquor tended to cause him to become an idle, dissolute, lewd or immoral person was essentially a question for the trier of fact. People v. Deibert, 117 Cal.App.2d 410, 416, 256 P.2d 355. Applying the rule set forth in the Deibert case to the facts presented herein, the finding that such acts on the part of the defendant did so affect the minor was reasonable and fully justified under the evidence presented.
It is further contended by defendant that a cash register tape which was introduced by him into evidence was an uncontradicted and unimpeached original business entry and hence as such must be accepted as true. This particular bit of evidence showed that on the day in question a total of only $10.95 in off-sale liquor was sold. Therefore defendant argues no liquor was sold to the minor in question, since the total price of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Benford
...v. Dutton (1937), 9 Cal.2d 505, 507(5), 71 P.2d 218; People v. Skelly (1936), 5 Cal.2d 283, 287(2), 54 P.2d 1; People v. Laisne (1958), 163 Cal.App.2d 554, 559(8), 329 P.2d 725), or that defendant did not show that the evidence was unavailable at the trial (People v. Mayes (1947), 78 Cal.Ap......
-
People v. Superior Court
...to the delinquency of a minor. (See, People v. Moore (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 672, 676, 7 Cal.Rptr. 142; People v. Laisne (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 554, 556--557, 329 P.2d 725; People v. Deibert (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 410, 415--416, 256 P.2d 355; and People v. Perfetti (1928) 88 Cal.App. 609, 610--......
-
United States v. Wilkins
...examine the transcript of the preliminary hearing prior to trial and to object to its introduction in evidence. People v. Laisne, 163 Cal.App.2d 554, 329 P.2d 725 (3rd Dist.1958). Instead, his counsel stipulated that the People's case be submitted on the preliminary transcript and thus cons......
-
People v. Smith
...does not reweigh the evidence even though it was before the trier of fact in the form of a reporter's transcript (People v. Laisne, 163 Cal.App.2d 554, 557, 329 P.2d 725) or an affidavit (People v. Camerano, 260 Cal.App.2d 861, 865, 67 Cal.Rptr. 446 (disapproved on another ground in People ......