People v. Payne

Decision Date03 November 1969
Docket NumberCr. 16130
Citation81 Cal.Rptr. 635,1 Cal.App.3d 361
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sylvester PAYNE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Frank P. Rosen, Los Angeles, for appellant under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert F. Katz, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

An information charged defendant with robbery (§ 211, Pen.Code) and alleged that he was armed with a deadly weapon, an automatic gun, at the time of the commission of the offense and with a concealed deadly weapon (automatic gun) at the time of arrest. He was found guilty of first degree robbery and not to be armed at the time of the commission of the offense but armed at the time of arrest. He appeals from the judgment.

Around noon on September 12, 1967, a salesgirl at Hartfield's store brought defendant to Billy Luck, credit manager, to make a credit application. Luck gave him an application; they stood face to face across the counter from each other. Defendant did not complete the application but asked Luck to take a look at some coats he wanted to purchase at the store's cash desk located in the center of the floor; they walked out on the floor. Luck noticed defendant's hand placed inside a brown paper bag resting on the cash desk; the bag made a thud on the counter as defendant said, 'I want you to go back there and get the money' and shoved the bag with his hand in it over the counter; he handed a second bag to Luck. At first Luck thought it might be a joke but after defendant said, 'Did you hear me?' and repeated his statement, and a cashier said, 'Come on, Mr. Luck, get the money. We are going to get robbed,' he complied. Luck walked to the safe about 10 feet away. The cashier saw defendant take a shiny object off the cash desk and place it in his pocket; the object with which defendant had been fiddling flashed when it was taken from the bag. Luck then returned with the money in the paper bag; it consisted of singles, rolls of coins and envelopes containing money and deposit slips bearing the name 'Hartfield Store,' totaling $3,000. Defendant turned to the door, warned them not to call police and left.

The store detective, Oscar Dunbar, was next door drinking a coke; Mrs. Jordan, a window trimmer, came in and told him something was happening at Hartfield's; in front of the store he found Luck who told him that 'the man is going around the corner that just robbed the store' and Mrs. Jordan yelled, 'He is just going around the corner. He is just going around the corner, the man with the two bags.' He ran to the corner and saw defendant 6 to 8 feet away, carrying two brown paper bags 'walking fast' to the parking lot behind the store; defendant was the only person on the street. Told defendant had a gun, Dunbar followed him about 50 yards into the parking lot and when he was in the back of the lot, pointed his weapon at defendant, yelled, 'Police Officers. Halt' and ordered him to raise his hands slowly, turn, extend his hands in front and give the bag to the store manager who had just arrived. Dunbar's partner came and together they frisked defendant; in defendant's right trouser pocket he found a loaded automatic gun. Defendant was escorted back to the store and the police were called. Upstairs Dunbar examined the contents of the bags and found them to contain money, checks and bank receipts which bore the name 'Hartfield Store' signed by store employees.

Defendant neither testified nor offered a defense.

Appellant's sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause to arrest him thus the automatic pistol and the two paper bags containing the money were illegally seized as incident to an unlawful arrest. He argues that Dunbar did not see him leave or near the store and he was first observed by him a block away on another street; and Dunbar had no particular description of the robber other than 'a man carrying two bags' and relied upon what others told him in making the arrest.

At the outset of the trial during the direct examination of Mr. Luck, the prosecutor proceeded to question him concerning what the store employees told Dunbar when he arrived directly after the robbery; defense counsel objected and the prosecutor stated, 'There is no issue on probable cause, your Honor. I won't go into this. You will stipulate there is no issue on probable cause, counsel?' and defense counsel replied, 'No issue on probable cause.' Relying upon the stipulation, the prosecutor abandoned further questions concerning the matter. In light of this stipulation, which eliminated the issue of probable cause from the trial and foreclosed the offering of further proof thereon, appellant is now in no position to urge the issue of probable cause on appeal. To permit appellant to raise it now under circumstances where further examination of witnesses at trial might have produced further proof on the issue is to allow him to gamble on the results of the trial while inviting error. Such tactics are not permitted. (PEOPLE V. HARRIS, 274 CAL.APP.2D ---, ---, 79 CAL.RPTR. 352.)A Moreover, no objection was made when Dunbar identified the gun (Exh. 1) as the weapon he removed from defendant's pocket upon frisking him in the parking lot, or the envelope containing various items (Exhs. 2, 2--A) found in one of the bags defendant was carrying; nor was objection interposed to the offer of the gun and envelope in evidence. 'In the absence of an appropriate objection in the trial court, it cannot be successfully contended on appeal that it was error to permit the introduction of evidence because it was illegally obtained. In the face of a proper objection the prosecution might have been able to offer additional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Frank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 6 June 1985
    ...issue on appeal, since the prosecution was deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence below on that point. (People v. Payne (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 361, 364-365, 81 Cal.Rptr. 635.) Similarly, an accused's lack-of-probable-cause-to-arrest objection has been held insufficient to preserve a co......
  • Deborah C., In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 5 November 1981
    ...employees that act without police cooperation have been regarded as private citizens unaffected by Miranda. (People v. Payne (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 361, 365, 81 Cal. Rptr. 635; Peoplev. Crabtree (1969) 239 Cal.App.2d 789, 790, 49 Cal.Rptr. 235; but cf. In re Victor F. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 673......
  • People v. Shipstead, Cr. 8549
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 8 July 1971
    ...892, 895, 91 Cal.Rptr. 874, 875. See also People v. Baker (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 826, 837--839, 90 Cal.Rptr. 508; People v. Payne (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 361, 365, 81 Cal.Rptr. 635; People v. Temple (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 402, 408, 80 Cal.Rptr. 885; People v. Garber (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 119, 126-......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 22 April 1986
    ...faced with a proper objection. (People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 462-463, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487; People v. Payne (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 361, 365, 81 Cal.Rptr. 635, citing People v. Davis (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 341, 346, 71 Cal.Rptr. Furthermore, when this well-settled principle i......
  • 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