People v. Norman
| Decision Date | 17 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3646 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Louis NORMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Dennis L. Woodman, Redwood City, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph I. Kelly, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was charged by indictment with the murder of one Martin Avila. A jury found the appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, and fixed his penalty at life imprisonment, pursuant to sections 187 and 190.1 of the Penal Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial. His only contention on appeal is that on the basis of the evidence presented, there is an inherent impossibility that he fired the fatal shot.
A careful review of the testimony indicates that there is no merit in the appellant's argument. Several witnesses testified about the circumstances which preceded the shooting. On the evening of September 14, 1958, a Sunday, Martin Avila, the victim, and his common-law wife, Violet Bissonette, and his employer, Mr. Bertolucci, were drinking beer at the San Gregorio Inn, in the town of San Gregorio on the coast of San Mateo County. The appellant arrived at the bar about 5:30 or 6:00 p. m. He had had relations with Miss Bissonette late in June, after she had left Mr. Avila for two days as the result of an argument. The bartender, Mr. Lavin, asked the appellant, 'Can I help you, sir?' The appellant replied, pointing to Miss Bissonette, 'You can't help me but the girl can.'
The appellant apologized to Mr. Lavin and then engaged the victim in a conversation. An argument began after the appellant told Mr. Avila that he had a good looking wife. Mr. Avila hit the appellant, but the appellant did not fight back. The owner of the San Gregorio Inn asked the appellant to leave. The appellant left and came back in 3-4 minutes. The appellant then asked Mr. Avila if he would like to play dice for a drink. Mr. Avila first refused, but consented after the appellant asked him if he was afraid. The victim and Miss Bissonette left the San Gregorio Inn about 9:00 p. m. The appellant left at the same time and followed closely behind them. After they had begun to walk to the victim's home on the Bertolucci Ranch, just off the San Gregorio-La Honda Road, two witnesses saw the appellant sitting in his old car with the lights on and then take off toward La Honda on the San Gregorio-La Honda Road. They saw the appellant's car turn left into the Bertolucci Ranch road and then back up a few feet. They heard a short and watched the appellant's car quickly drive off in the direction of the San Gregorio Inn. Other witnesses also heard the shot and a noisy car driving away.
Miss Bissonette testified that after leaving the San Gregorio Inn, she and the victim walked on the left side of the La Honda-San Gregorio Road. They had just reached the entrance of the ranch road, which runs off the highway. A car came up behind them and honked. They did not know who was in the car but thought it might be the victim's employer who often gave them a ride home. They walked a few feet further to the two posts which mark the gate of the Bertolucci Ranch, about 23 feet from the San Gregorio-La Honda Road, and then the car turned into the ranch road. Not recognizing the car, they turned around and walked toward it. As they started to walk toward the car, the car backed up until it was facing them and stopped about three feet away. Miss Bissonette stood with her left shoulder toward the highway with her arm around the victim. The victim was standing on her left side, at a right angle toward her. The victim, who was 5'11"' tall, was just starting to say something to whoever was in the car when a shot rang out. She saw a pinpoint of light, like a lighted cigarette on the passenger side of the car. The car backed out to the highway and quickly took off in the direction of the San Gregorio Inn. The victim turned, fell backwards and dropped to the ground.
The body of the victim was found 900 yards east of San Gregorio on the La Honda-San Gregorio Road, at the entrance of the Bertolucci Ranch road. The cause of death was a single bullet through the heart. The victim was lying parallel to the road, on his right-hand side, with his head and shoulders off the road. The buillet entered the body about the middle of the right side, then dropped down at a 30~ angle, and exited in a straight line. There was no way of determining the type of weapon used or the size of bullet. The county pathologist could not tell whether the weapon had been fired at a close range.
The only people present at the scene of the shooting were the appellant, the victim and Miss Bissonette. The night was a clear one with good visibility. There was no moon. The only illumination at the scene of the shooting was provided by auto headlights.
The appellant stated that on the night in question, he followed the victim and Miss Bissonette because the victim had invited him over for a drink. This testimony was contradicted by Miss Bissonette who testified that they had no beer in the house that evening. The appellant stated that he drove up behind the victim and Miss Bissonette as they entered the gate to the ranch. He was alone in his car with the windows open. He missed the ranch road and so had to back up a few feet. He heard a shot and thinking it was meant for him, quickly drove off. He did not hear Miss Bissonette cry out because his car was noisy. He did not smoke. He did not go to his home in San Carlos but drove to Santa Cruz where he worked. He spent the night in his car on the beach, in order to sleep off his hangover. The next day, Monday, he did not go to work, but returned to his home. He was arrested about 5:00 p. m. on Monday.
The appellant would not reply when repeatedly asked whether he had shot Mr. Avila. He did state, however, that he had been using firearms since he was a child, had a better-than-average knowledge of rifles and was a very good shot. He also stated that he went hunting and frequently had a gun in his car, but did not have a gun in his car on September 14th. An unfired .22 cartridge was found in the glove compartment of the appellant's car and other ammunition at his home. There was no evidence that the appellant had had a gun with him on September 14th, but he had access to several weapons on that day. The appellant's room-mate, Tom Corkery, testified that on the afternoon of the 14th, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burnett
...in deciding the question of his guilt or innocence.' (See People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 451, 323 P.2d 1020; People v. Norman, 175 Cal.App.2d 348, 353, 346 P.2d 221; Pen.Code, § (2) The courts have always recognized that unnecessary show of restraint of an accused in the presence of ......
-
People v. Ruscoe
...v. Zurica, 225 Cal.App.2d 25, 31, 37 Cal.Rptr. 118; People v. Causey, 220 Cal.App.2d 641, 654, 34 Cal.Rptr. 43; People v. Norman, 175 Cal.App.2d 348, 353, 346 P.2d 221.) Corroborative evidence, direct or circumstantial, is sufficient if it tends to connect defendant with the crime even thou......
-
People v. Fleming
...justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of the judgment (People v. Huston, 21 Cal.2d 690, 693, 134 P.2d 758; People v. Norman, 175 Cal.App.2d 348, 346 P.2d 221). It is equally well settled that a jury can give credence to a witness whose testimony is contradictory or inconsistent ......
-
People v. Chandler, E043284 (Cal. App. 6/11/2008)
...is physically impossible for it to be true, or its falsity must be apparent without resort to inference or deduction." (People v. Norman (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 348, 352.) The alleged conflicts in the victim's testimony were for the jury to consider in determining the victim's credibility and......