People v. McKinney
| Decision Date | 08 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2735 |
| Citation | 152 Cal.App.2d 332,313 P.2d 163 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Young McKINNEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Young McKinney in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and Lloyd Hinkelman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant, Young McKinney, appeals in propria persona from a judgment of conviction of first degree robbery entered upon a jury's verdict. He claims that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction 'if the jury had not been prejudiced by the prosecution and by the attitude of the court'. Defendant contends that the testimony of the complaining witness at the preliminary examination was inconsistent with his testimony at the trial and that his trial testimony was not credible; that defendant was not properly represented by counsel; that the trial court erred in (1) refusing to answer two questions asked by him personally, (2) denying at the outset of the trial his motion for a continuance to enable him to submit to a lie detector test, (3) admitting over the objection of his counsel evidence of prior convictions of felonies, and (4) not giving an instruction concerning the accuracy of the preliminary transcript. He complains generally of misconduct of the prosecuting attorney in questioning witnesses.
Byron Horne testified as follows: About 10:30 or 11 P.M. on May 5, 1956, as he was alighting from his car which he had parked in the vicinity of 6th and M Streets in the City of Sacramento, the defendant, Young McKinney, approached and asked him if he 'wanted a girl'. They bargained over the price and when defendant said $5, Horne said, 'All right'. They got into Horne's car and drove to the corner of 4th and N Streets. Defendant had requested liquor and after Horne parked the car, they entered a nearby liquor store where defendant saw Horne buy a half point of gin with a $20 bill. During the following fifteen or twenty minutes defendant drank most of the gin. After making the purchase they walked to an apartment or rooming house at 6th and N Streets where defendant told Horne to give him the money for the girl. Horne refused and started walking toward his car. Defendant followed him for about a block and then told him to stop. Upon turning around Horne was confronted by defendant with an open pocket knife which defendant held at his groin. Defendant told him not to try to run or make a move or he would 'spill' his 'guts'. Defendant took Horne's watch, approximately $19 from Horne's wallet, the change from his pockets and his cigarette lighter and then returned his empty wallet and watch and told him to go on down the street. Fifteen or twenty minutes later Horne saw the defendant entering a hotel as 5th and N Streets and contacted two police officers whom he accompanied to the hotel. He remained in the police car. The two officers testified they went up to a room occupied by the defendant, arrested him, took $13.04 and a pocket knife from his person and a coat hanging on an open door and a hat from the bed. One of the officers then accompanied Horne to this room and, as Horne testified, he then identified the defendant as the person who had robbed him. At the trial Horne again identified defendant and identified the knife, the coat and the hat as those used or worn by defendant during the robbery. A scar on defendant's left cheek was used by Horne as a distinguishing mark in identifying defendant.
The morning after the robbery Horne found his cigarette lighter at the scene in a paper bag similar to the one which was used to carry the gin.
Defendant testified that on that particular night he went for a ride with two or three other persons at 9:30 or 10 P.M. and returned to his room about 10:45 P.M. and was there at least half an hour when the officers arrived.
Defendant's conviction of first degree robbery is sustained by the evidence. Code Civ.Proc., sec. 1844; People v. McNeal, 123 Cal.App.2d 222, 266 P.2d 529. A reviewing court may not reappraise the credibility of witnesses and reweigh evidence. People v. De Paula, 43 Cal.2d 643, 649, 276 P.2d 600. Claimed inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses are matters which should be directed to the attention of the trier of fact, and they cannot be urged on appeal. People v. Mercer, 103 Cal.App.2d 462, 229 P.2d 411.
Defendant requests that the record be supplemented with certain paycheck stubs to show lack of motive and also by including the preliminary transcript. During the trial reference to the preliminary transcript was made by counsel for the purpose of impeachment to show prior inconsistent statements made by witnesses. These specific references are reported in the reporter's transcript. However, neither the check stubs nor preliminary transcript was made part of the record in the trial court and, therefore, may not be considered by this court. People v. Gormley, 64 Cal.App.2d 336, 338, 148 P.2d 687; see, also, 4 Cal.Jur.2d 283, sec. 457. Defendant cannot supplement the record by means of his request to produce additional evidence on appeal. In People v. Carmen, 43 Cal.2d 342, 349, 273 P.2d 521, 525, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Benford
...(1954), 43 Cal.2d 342, 349(7), 273 P.2d 521; People v. Mendes (1950), 35 Cal.2d 537, 549(9), 219 P.2d 1; People v. McKinney (1957), 152 Cal.App.2d 332, 335(3), 313 P.2d 163; People v. Willison (1932), 122 Cal.App. 760, 762(5), 10 P.2d 766; People v. Myers (1932), 122 Cal.App. 675, 678(3), 1......
-
People v. Mattson
...234.) So long as defendant is represented by counsel at the trial, he has no right to be heard by himself (People v. McKinney (1957), supra, 152 Cal.App.2d 332, 336(6), 313 P.2d 163; People v. Glenn (1950), supra, 96 Cal.App.2d 859, 868, 216 P.2d 457); conversely, when defendant has intelli......
-
Chaleff v. Superior Court
...234).) So long as defendant is represented by counsel at the trial, he has no right to be heard by himself (People v. McKinney (1957), Supra, 152 Cal.App.2d 332, 336, 313 P.2d 163(6); People v. Glenn (1950), Supra, 96 Cal.App.2d 859, 868, 216 P.2d 457); Conversely, when defendant has intell......
-
People v. Roberts
...v. Spencer, 170 Cal.App.2d 145, 150, 338 P.2d 484; People v. Justice, 167 Cal.App.2d 616, 622, 334 P.2d 1031; People v. McKinney, 152 Cal.App.2d 332, 335, 313 P.2d 163; People v. Herandez, 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400, 309 P.2d 969; People v. Gormley, 64 Cal.App.2d 336, 338, 148 P.2d The judgmen......