People v. Quarles, Cr. 2902
| Decision Date | 02 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2902 |
| Citation | 123 Cal.App.2d 1,266 P.2d 68 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. QUARLES. |
Marvin J. Colangelo, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of Cal., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Dep. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant, Doyle Lee Quarles, was tried without a jury and convicted on two counts of an information charging him with violation of sec. 192, Penal Code (involuntary manslaughter) and of sec. 501 of the Vehicle Code (). He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. However the record does not show any motion for a new trial was made or any order denying one. Probation was denied.
The accident occurred on September 5, 1952, at approximately 11:15 p. m. on the Eastshore Highway in Emeryville, California. Defendant's car, a 1941 Buick, was proceeding north on a divided highway when it crossed into the southbound lane, sideswiped a southbound car and then hit a Pontiac, overturning it. An infant riding in the Pontiac died as a result of the injuries and other passengers were hurt.
Two men who had witnessed the accident stopped immediately, going first to the overturned Pontiac to give what assistance they could but observing shortly thereafter that defendant was lying on the roadway to the left of the Buick. A Highway Patrol Officer, arriving soon after the accident happened, found the appellant lying in the roadway at the left of the Buick, his feet practically under the edge of the car, his head away from it. No one else was seen in or near the Buick. Witnesses testified that immediately prior to the accident they had observed an unidentified man driving the Buick, had seen no one else in the car but that as the convertible top was up they did not have a clear view of the rear seat.
Defendant and the passengers in the Pontiac were taken to a hospital. There defendant was asked by Officer Sabo if he would permit a blood sample to be taken for analysis of alcoholic content. He agreed. The doctor asked and defendant again agreed. The blood taken contained .286% alcohol; .150% is sufficient for intoxication.
Counsel for appellant, who at appellant's request was appointed by this court to represent him on this appeal, sets forth the following arguments:
I. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the judgment.
II. The court made two incorrect rulings, each of which constitutes reversible error.
Appellant claims there was no proof that he was the driver of the car, pointing out as evidence to the contrary that he was found outside the car on a cushion with all the doors of the automobile closed, that if he had fallen from the driver's seat he would have been on the bare ground or roadway and the car door would have remained open. Appellant did not know whether he was driving or not and had no recollection of the accident, but testified that earlier in the evening he was accompanied by several companions and that two of them had driven the car during that eveniling. Two hats and a half-filled bottle of wine were found in the back seat which appellant deems significant to show others were in the car at the time of the accident, that it could be inferred one of the others was driving and that appellant was in the back seat with the bottle of wine. The fact that witnesses had seen only the driver in the Buick when the car passed them was not conclusive evidence that there had been only one man in the car due to the fact that when the top of a 1941 Buick convertible is up an outside observer can not determine whether or not a person is in the rear of the car. In arguing for a reversal on the lack of evidence to support the conviction, appellant cites People v. Flores, 58 Cal.App.2d 764, at page 769, 137 P.2d 767, at page 769, from which he quotes: People v. Kessler, 62 Cal.App.2d 817, 821, 145 P.2d 656, 658, is quoted as giving the correct rule for rendering a decision on circumstantial evidence: '* * * there could be no conviction unless the facts or circumstances proved were not only entirely consistent with the theory of guilt but irreconcilable with any other rational conclusion.' In summary appellant states that examining all the facts together, there are uncontradicted facts which point to the reasonable conclusion that appellant could not have been driving the car at the time of the accident, and for this reason the appellate court can examine the insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, and is not bound by the findings of the trial court.
Respondent answers that the rule is that even though the appellate tribunal might believe the circumstances reasonably pointed to the innocence of the defendant, it would not be justified in interfering with the determination of the trier of fact as long as the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict, citing cases and furthermore on the evidence the only reasonable conclusion is that defendant was driving the Buick at the time of the collision.
Here the three witnesses, who appeared at the scene immediately following the collision, testified that they saw no other person in or about the Buick. Hence the trial court reasonably concluded that the defendant, and he alone, was the operator of the Buick at the time of the accident.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson
...at the time of driving. "The question as to whether defendant drove the vehicle is a question of fact for the jury (People v. Quarles [(1954)], 123 Cal.App.2d 1 ) .... An appellate court will assume every fact and inference which the trier of fact could resonably have deduced from the evide......
-
People v. Hanggi
...sufficiency of the evidence. The question as to whether defendant drove the vehicle is a question of fact for the jury (People v. Quarles, 123 Cal.App.2d 1, 266 P.2d 68). On appeal the judgment will be affirmed 'unless the circumstances * * * are such that or no hypothesis is there sufficie......
-
People v. Moore, Cr. 19510
...that moment, while another (Bauer) lost sight of the Mustang as it rounded a curve. Similar arguments were rejected in People v. Quarles, 123 Cal.App.2d 1, 266 P.2d 68, where it was urged that the witnesses had only seen the driver's shape as the car (a Buick) went past them. The court note......