People v. Pruitt

Decision Date27 November 1957
Docket NumberCr. 5890
CitationPeople v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 318 P.2d 552 (Cal. App. 1957)
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Nolan PRUITT, Jr., Lawrence I. Perry, Milton George Scandrett, Defendants, Lawrence I. Perry, Defendant and Appellant.

Lawrence I. Perry, in pro per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, the above named defendants were accused of the crime of robbery allegedly committed on or about June 8, 1956, in that by means of force and fear they took from Ronald Tray certain personal property valued at $600. It was further alleged that at the time of the robbery defendants were armed with deadly weapons. Defendants pleaded not guilty and were tried before a jury which found them guilty of robbery of the first degree. The jury also found as true, the allegation that defendants were armed as aforesaid. Appellant Perry was sentenced to State Prison. From the judgment of conviction he prosecutes this appeal.

We regard the following as a fair epitome of the factual background surrounding this prosecution. Ronald Tray was employed at the 'Simpson & Dennis Poultry' located at 2075 W. 29th Place in Los Angeles County. He also resided there. The place was conducted by a Mrs. Simpson and a Mr. Dennis as an outlet for selling and distributing eggs. It served as well as a residence. On June 18, 1956, around 1:00 or 2:00 a. m. Mr. Tray and Mr. Dennis were inside the premises when the doorbell rang. Mr. Tray looked through the peephole of the door. Defendant Pruitt was there. Mr. Tray had never seen him before. Mr. Tray asked what he wanted. Defendant Pruitt said that Mrs. Simpson's daughter had sent him for some records. Mr. Tray opened the door. Defendant Pruitt stepped in and two other men jumped up on the porch. Mr. Pruitt said that this was a 'stick-up' and displayed a revolver. The other two men rushed in behind him and they also had revolvers. They roused Mr. Dennis who was half asleep on the couch. Defendant Pruitt held Mr. Tray and Mr. Dennis at bay while the other two men looked in the other room. These two men had stocking caps over their faces, that is, ladies' stockings cut up a certain distance then tied in a knot at the top and pulled over the face.

All three men asked questions as to what was in the room. Mrs. Simpson's bedroom door was locked and one of the men who was wearing a stocking cap kicked it down with his foot. The three men ordered Mr. Tray and Mr. Dennis into this room. The guns were still displayed. The men kicked down Mrs. Simpson's closet door and searched the room thoroughly. They were there perhaps twenty minutes. Two of the men left together after first tying up Mr. Tray and Mr. Dennis with adhesive tape. One of the masked men lingered, then in about ten seconds Mr. Tray heard the door slam. Mr. Tray and Mr. Dennis extricated themselves and Mrs. Simpson was summond. themselves and Mrs. Simpson was summoned.

When the three men came in Mr. Tray was in a state of fear because of the guns exhibited. He noted the masked men were colored. When asked, 'Did you notice anything unusual about anything concerning either of these two men?' Mr. Tray testified, 'Yes. One thing in particular, they didn't seem to want to speak or talk too loudly in front of me, you see, that's one thing that buried in my mind.' According to Mr. Tray, both men had hats on--one had a blue hat with a light band and was wearing a sport coat. One of the men was a little stockier than the other. Mr. Tray did hear one of the masked men say something in a low voice. At the time, the voice sounded familiar but Mr. Tray could not place it. Mr. Tray believed he had met appellant Perry prior to this occasion, at dice games. Appellant Perry and defendant Scandrett appeared similar in appearance to the two masked men.

Prior to the preliminary hearing, Mr. Tray saw appellant Perry at the University Police Station and heard him speak. Mr. Tray noticed that the voice was similar to the voice above mentioned of one of the persons wearing a mask. Mr. Tray associated the similarity of voice with the man who kicked in the door.

LeRoy Dennis, Mrs. Simpson's brother, generally corroborated Mr. Tray's narrative as to what happened on the occasion in question. Mr. Dennis had been semidozing and only actually saw two men, who roused him up. They were wearing masks which could have been stocking caps, and had guns. As to whether he observed a man without a mask, he did not get a clear look. Prior to the episode in question, Mr. Dennis had consumed some alcoholic beverages and was 'feeling the effect slightly'. He was, however, sure that the men he saw were colored.

When Mrs. Hazel Simpson, co-owner of the poultry establishment, arrived there in the early morning hours of June 18, 1956, in response to a call, she observed that the premises were not in the same condition as when she was last there. The last time she had been there was the prior afternoon, at which time there was nothing unusual in connection with the premises. When Mrs. Simpson arrived the early morning of June 18, she noted that her bedroom door had been kicked down, and her bathroom and closet doors kicked in; that all the contents of the drawers, cabinets and bedroom were 'slung' around and that money was missing. She had approximately between $585 and $600 in her bedroom closet. Part of this money was in a money bag and part of it was in a picture frame. The picture represented a gift from the Shriners to Mrs. Simpson's husband on their 25th anniversary and some two to three hundred dollars in silver dollars were placed around the picture. The glass of the picture had been broken out, and the money removed.

Mrs. Simpson had a revolver (People's Exhibit No. 1), which had been in the top drawer of a chest of drawers in her bedroom. This revolver was there when Mrs. Simpson had been at the premises the afternoon prior to the events here in question. When she arrived at the premises the early morning of June 18, she found that the revolver was not there. She did not again see it until the preliminary hearing. Mrs. Simpson had purchased this revolver in Arizona and she kept the bill of sale in her wallet. The bill of sale (People's Exhibit No. 3) contained the number 18605.

John Frink, a police officer of the City of Los Angeles, attached to the Harbor Division, had occasion to investigate an automobile in which appellant Perry and defendant Scandrett were riding on August 21st at about 9:00 p. m. at 28th and Pacific Streets. Officer Frink had received a call to the effect that a man was holding a theft suspect and upon arriving at the scene the officer was met by the victim of the theft who had the automobile in question stopped. Appellant Perry and defendant Scandrett were standing alongside of the car. As the officer recalled, the car was registered to appellant Perry. The officer found the .38 caliber Smith and Wesson Chief's Special two-inch revolver, (People's Exhibit No. 1), under the righthand portion of the front seat of the car. It bore the serial number 18605. The officer asked appellant Perry who owned the gun. The latter replied that he did. Later, at the police station, the officer asked appellant Perry where he had purchased the gun. Appellant Perry said he bought it from a friend but would not state who the friend was.

Loren Waggoner, police officer for the City of Los Angeles, attached to the University Division, arrested defendant Pruitt on October 6th at about 5:30 p. m. in the safety zone on the southwest corner of Jefferson and Arlington Boulevard. Prior to going to this location the officer had received a call to go there. On arriving there he met Mr. Tray. Mr. Tray directed the officer's attention to defendant Pruitt.

T. E. Nordin, police officer for the City of Los Angeles, attached to the University Division arrested appellant Perry at the latter's residence, 2632 1/2 South Budlong, on October 4 at about 8:00 p. m. Officer Nordin and his partner, Officer Boller, went to that location for the purpose of making this arrest. On arrival, Officer Nordin observed appellant Perry standing in the doorway talking to some other people. The officers arrested him at that time, then entered the premises. Officer Nordin found the stocking (People's Exhibit No. 2) in a drawer in the closet of the front room of the apartment. This stocking was similar in appearance to one which Mr. Tray observed worn over the faces of the two masked men.

Officer Nordin determined that defendant Scandrett lived at this same address as well as appellant Perry. The officer saw defendant Scandrett later, at the University Division Police Station. The latter was arrested when he came in there.

Following the arrest of appellant Perry, Officer Nordin had a conversation with appellant both in the living room of the apartment and also at the police station concerning the gun which had previously been recovered from him (i. e., People's Exhibit No. 1). Appellant said he had bought it from a person on 5th Street. Officer Nordin asked the name of this person. Appellant said he did not know, that he was in a crap game.

Robert Wright, police officer for the City of Los Angeles, was one of the investigating officers in the case at bar. He had a conversation with the three defendants at the Police Administration Building on October 9th. Besides Officer Wright and the three defendants, another officer and a jailer were present. The three defendants were sitting around a table about five feet apart from one another. At first Officer Wright talked to all three of the defendants, then directed his questions to defendant Pruitt. In talking to the entire group, Officer Wright told them he had talked to each of them individually, that they had told him...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Ross v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1977
    ...790-791, 94 Cal.Rptr. 511) and criminal (People v. Sparks (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 597, 600-601, 68 Cal.Rptr. 909; People v. Pruitt (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 592, 318 P.2d 552) proceedings and a number of criminal cases unequivocally hold that the rule encompasses a presumption that the trial......
  • Nelson v. People of State of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 22, 1965
    ...it may not be raised for the first time on appeal, citing People v. Lyons, 204 Cal.App.2d 364, 22 Cal.Rptr. 327; People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 318 P.2d 552; People v. Brittain, 149 Cal.App.2d 201, 308 P.2d 38, and People v. Kelsey, 140 Cal.App.2d 722, 295 P.2d 462. The court conclud......
  • People v. Rigney
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 1960
    ...out some feature of the testimony in greater detail. People v. Candiotto, 128 Cal.App.2d 347, 359-360, 275 P.2d 500; People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 593, 318 P.2d 552. The mere fact that the court questioned the witnesses at some length does not establish misconduct. People v. Corriga......
  • People v. McNeal
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1963
    ...v. Johnson, 195 Cal.App.2d 573, 574, 16 Cal.Rptr. 1; People v. Reece, 201 A.C.A. 653, 656-657, 20 Cal.Rptr. 104; People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 594, 318 P.2d 552; People v. Holguin, 145 Cal.App.2d 520, 522, 302 P.2d 635; People v. Smith, 171 Cal.App.2d 568, 570, 340 P.2d 640; People ......
  • Get Started for Free