People v. Porter
| Decision Date | 06 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4611 |
| Citation | 105 Cal.App.2d 324,233 P.2d 102 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PORTER et al. |
Thomas G. Neusom, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Dan Kaufmann, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By information defendants were charged jointly with the crime of murder. Each pleaded not guilty. After trial by the court without a jury they were found guilty of murder in the first degree and each was sentenced to the state prison for life. Their motion for new trial was denied and they are appealing from the judgment upon the grounds (1) insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the court committed reversible error in admitting re-recordings of a wire recording of a conversation between appellants.
The scene of the assault and robbery which resulted in the death of the victim was a stop of the Pacific Electric Railway line known as Valley Junction in the eastern part of Los Angeles, slightly to the north and east of the General Hospital. The Ramona Freeway runs easterly of and parallel to the tracks at this point and over it is a pedestrian bridge which on its west end terminates in a cement stairway leading to the rear of the passenger waiting station at Valley Junction and on its easterly end terminates in a stairway which leads up to the Pomeroy Street ramp which in turn after a few feet intersects the main artery of Soto Street.
About 10:00 o'clock in the evening of May 17, 1949, Richard Castro was on the ramp leading to the passenger bridge and as he started to go down the stairs he heard a thud and saw a man fall flat on his face by the waiting station at Valley Junction. Within a couple of seconds thereafter he saw two men rush from behind the station and search the victim's pockets after which he saw them run toward the tracks, proceed north along the tracks and disappear through some shrubs and brush. The junction was lighted by an overhead light. Castro turned around and ran to a hot dog stand on the corner of Pomeroy and Soto and he and a person from the stand ran back across the pedestrian bridge to the victim. Castro did not see or pass anyone on the bridge. When they reached the scene of the crime they found a police offer there.
The officer had arrived on the Pacific Electric car which stopped at the junction about one or two minutes after 10:00 P.M. He immediately saw the fallen victim lying on his back a few feet from the passenger station and about five or six feet from the tracks. There was blood alongside the victim's head. The pocket on the left side of his trousers was out and a watch chain was found approximately a foot from the body.
About 10:00 o'clock of the same evening two colored men were seen by a boy, one James Krout, running across Soto Street where it is intersected by Wabash Street toward Valley Junction and disappearing from view at the Pomeroy ramp. The boy continued north on Soto to the hot dog stand and saw Castro as he ran to the stand. Neither Castro nor Krout could positively identify as defendants the men they saw although each testified they were similar in appearance.
About ten minutes after 10:00 of the same evening one Samuel Sandoval, who knew defendant Porter, saw the two men about five blocks from the scene of the crime coming from the vicinity of Soto Street and walking fast, 'sort of trotting.' In reply to Sandoval's inquiry as to where they were coming from defendant Porter said they had just 'pulled a caper.'
On the following day Richard Hirsch saw defendant Porter and asked him if he had been around Valley Junction that night. Defendant told him he had been there with another man, that he had 'pulled a caper down there' and got a gold pocket watch and some change. Porter told Hirsch to keep quiet.
Defendants were held for investigation and later released. At that time each of them admitted he was in the vicinity of Soto and Pomeroy at 10:00 P.M. on May 17, but stated they went directly home. Each of them denied he had been drinking.
About a year after the crime was committed defendant Porter was advised by an investigating officer that there was evidence connecting him with the crime. Porter stated he would tell the police everything that happened at Valley Junction if he could talk to defendant Deckard. Defendants were brought together and left alone. A wire recording was made of their conversation and the technician who made the recording also listened to the conversation directly through the amplifying equipment. During the conversation Porter indicated to Deckard that they had gone down to Valley Junction after crossing Soto Street to board a car to Watts; the victim was lying there when they arrived; they thought he was drunk and went through his pockets, took a watch and several dollars, changed their minds about going to Watts and went home. Porter asked Deckard if he 'wanted to put it that way.' Deckard said it would be all right with him and if Porter wanted to do it he would 'go for it.' Deckard told Porter to do all the talking and Porter assented, admonishing Deckard to listen to every word he told the officers. When the officer returned Porter told the following story: He and Deckard had been at the house of a friend; they had gone from there to a hot dog stand at Soto and Pomeroy Streets about 9:30; from there they had gone down to Brooklyn Avenue and a short time later returned to Soto; he told Deckard they wanted to go to Watts and they had run across the street 'the way the guy said' and down the ramp leading to Valley Junction where they saw 'this guy lying down'; he was short of money and when he saw the man lying there he got the idea he wanted to search his pockets which he did, obtaining a small coin purse and a pocket watch; the man was lying on his right side with his legs 'sort of curled up under him'; he believed the chain broke when he jerked the watch out of the victim's pocket; about this time they saw a streetcar coming from another direction and not wanting to be seen, they ran along the tracks leading north from Valley Junction; that then proceeded home and on the way met Sandoval. When asked why they wanted to go to Watts, Porter stated Deckard was feeling pretty 'high' and they just made up their minds to go there; the next day he saw some of his friends and someone called him a murderer; he 'went along with the joke,' neither affirming nor denying the charge. Both Porter and Deckard stated they had been drinking and that they were 'high.' Porter admitted disposing of the watch by throwing it in a ditch, later directing the officers to the spot where the police recovered the watch.
Defendants testified in their own behalf. Each of them admitted they were at Valley Junction a little before 10:00 P.M.; that Porter turned the victim over and took the watch and several dollars and they then ran north along the tracks. Each of them testified, however, that the victim was lying on his back when they first saw him; that they were at the waiting room about one or two minutes. Porter denied he told Sandoval he had 'pulled a caper' and also denied he had told the police officers on the day following the assault that they had not been drinking. Defendants admitted committing the robbery but denied committing the assault which resulted in the victim's death. Their explanation as to why they had not told the story sooner was that when the officers told them they had found witnesses who could place them at Valley Junction on the night of the crime it looked bad for them so they decided to admit the theft.
Defendants contend 'the evidence introduced at the trial was purely circumstantial and not sufficient as a matter of law to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Their contentions are that the testimony of Richard Castro was inherently improbable and not entitled to credibility; neither Castro nor Krout was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Curry
...complains that the whole of the previous interrogation was not recorded. There is no merit in this contention. People v. Porter, 105 Cal.App.2d 324, 331, 233 P.2d 102. We are satisfied that there was no denial of due process nor error in the admission of the tape recordings of defendant's D......
-
Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. O'Bryan
...the memories of the participants to the conversation, and therefore were the best evidence of the conversation. People v. Porter (1951), 105 Cal.App.2d 324, 233 P.2d 102; People v. Stephens (1953), 117 Cal.App.2d 653, 256 P.2d 1033; People v. Wojahn (1959), 169 Cal.App.2d 135, 337 P.2d 192;......
-
People v. Albert
...recordings are admissible in evidence. People v. Wojahn, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d 135, 146, 337 P.2d 192; People v. Porter, 105 Cal.App.2d 324, 330-331, 233 P.2d 102. Error in Reading Transcript of Tape A reporter, experienced in making transcripts from tape and Minifon recordings, made and id......
-
State v. Dills
...Miranda decision was rendered: Johnson v. New Jersey, June 20, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.2 People v. Porter, 105 Cal.App.2d 324, 331, 233 P.2d 102; People v. Jackson, 125 Cal.App.2d 776, 271 P.2d 196; People v. Curtis, 134 Cal.App.2d 624, 286 P.2d 446; State v. Salle......