People v. McGinnis
| Decision Date | 23 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. A |
| Court | California Superior Court |
| Parties | 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945 PEOPLE v. McGINNIS. 2980. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California |
John E. Glover, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., Donald M. Redwine, Asst. City Atty., and Dan J. Whiteside, Dep. City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.
The determination of this appeal depends upon the answer to this question: Was it error to admit evidence of the fact that, when arrested on the charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the defendant declined to comply with the police officers' request that he submit himself to an intoximeter test? We have concluded that it was not error, and that the judgment should be affirmed.
This case falls within the field already containing two well established types of cases: those in which, by statement or by silence in the face of an accusatory statement, the defendant made an admission that serves to establish his guilt, see People v. Simmons, 1946, 28 Cal.2d 699, 712-713, 172 P.2d 18, 25, and cases cited; and those in which by some action he revealed a consciousness of his guilt. Illustrative of the latter type of case we have those in which evidence was received of flight, People v. Anderson, 1922, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727, 208 P. 204; the making of contradictory statements to conceal the true facts, People v. Gentekos, 1931, 118 Cal.App. 177, 182, 4 P.2d 964, 967; the use of a false name. People v. Liss, 1950, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576, 219 P.2d 789, 793. The facts of our case bring it close to the group of cases last cited, for it was not what the defendant said that was significant, nor his failure to say anything, but what he refused to do.
The fact that the defendant at all times denied his guilt does not require the conclusion that the evidence be excluded. If one of trial for any offense had endeavored to conceal his identity after the crime by use of an alias, surely that fact would not be inadmissible in evidence, because as he gave the assumed name he also declared that he was an innocent man. Where actions may speak louder than words, the jury should be permitted to consider both. We do not find in People v. McGee, 1947, 31 Cal.2d 229, 239, 187 P.2d 706, 712, any reason to abandon or modify the conclusion we have expressed.
The jury, of course, might not have been persuaded that it was fear of the result that dictated defendant's refusal, but have believed that he had some other reason for declining to cooperate. This possibility, however, is not a basis for saying that the evidence should not have been received. As stated in People v. Graves, 1934, 137 Cal.App. 1, 10, 29 P.2d 807, 811, 30 P.2d 508: Again, in People v. Roeder, 1940, 41 Cal.App.2d 495, 500, 107 P.2d 92, 94, we find this quotation taken from two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conterno
...without violation of any constitutional right of a defendant, and that there may be comment upon the refusal. People v. McGinnis, 1953, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 946, 267 P.2d 458. Accord: State v. Bock, supra, Idaho 1958, 328 P.2d 1065, 1071, listing authorities in accord. State v. Smith, ......
-
State v. Bock, 8535
...230 Iowa 1168, 300 N.W. 275; State v. Nutt, 78 Ohio App. 336, 65 N.E.2d 675 (refusal to give sample of urine); People v. McGinnis, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 267 P.2d 458. In State v. Gatton, supra, the court 'There has been an increasing tendency in recent years upon the part of courts of m......
-
State v. Hanusiak
...supra, on such cases as State v. Bock, 80 Idaho 296, 328 P.2d 1065; State v. Smith, 230 S.C. 164, 94 S.E.2d 886; People v. McGinnis, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 267 P.2d 458; State v. Nutt, 78 Ohio App. 336, 65 N.E.2d 675; State v. Benson, 230 Iowa 1168, 300 N.W. 275; State v. Gatton, 60 Ohio......
-
Johnson v. State, 46784
...words,' and the jury should be allowed to consider both what he did and what he says. We are supported in this view by People v. McGinnis, 123 Cal.App.2d 945, 267 P.2d 458; People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d 817, 339 P.2d 968; State v. Bock, 80 Idaho 296, 328 P.2d 1065; State v. Tryon, 145 ......