People v. Quijada, Cr. 5110
| Decision Date | 07 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5110 |
| Citation | 268 P.2d 745,124 Cal.App.2d 422 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. QUIJADA. |
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Martin M. Ostrow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant, Ruben Quijada, was charged in an amended information with the crime of robbery, with a prior conviction of burglary. He waived jury trial and was found guilty of robbery in the first degree. The court also found a prior conviction of burglary. From the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant brings this appeal.
The argument of the defendant is directed to the question whether the testimony of the witnesses who identified him as the perpetrator of the robbery was legally sufficient. This evidence may fairly be summarized as follows: Marie Navarro, cashier of the Monterey Theater, testified: At about 8:50 p. m. on January 28, 1953, defendant walked up to the box office where she sold tickets and told her to give him all the money. She refused. Defendant reached through the window with his left hand and seized the coin till. The witness struggled with him for possession of the coin till. At this point defendant displayed a revolver which he had concealed in a newspaper and threatened her with death. The witness then ceased resistance, and defendant ran away southward with about $85 in coin and currency. Clarence Frankfourth, a patron of the theater, testified that he saw the robbery from the foyer of the theater, first watching defendant's reflection in one of the mirrors in the side of the lobby, and then, upon changing his position to get a better view, observing him directly through the glass side wall and glass front of the cashier's booth; that he saw a struggle and saw the gun in defendant's right hand; that defendant ran away, with Frankfourth in pursuit about a quarter of a block behind; defendant turned the corner to the west, ran to the end of the block, turned north, ran nearly to the end of the block, entered a car parked at the curb and drove away. This witness noted the license number of this car, which was later found to be registered in the name of defendant's brother-in-law. Another theater patron, Jerome Hastings, also saw the robbery from the foyer of the theater, and testified that defendant was the robber. He further testified that when defendant ran away he followed in the street, using a bicycle which he found parked in front of the theater; that he followed defendant around the first corner; he overhauled him at the second corner; defendant paused under a street light and said to him, 'Which way did he go?' 'Call the cops.'; the defendant then ran northward up the street after the witness turned aside to look for assistance; some minutes later, after failing to find assistance, he renewed the pursuit; he did not see anything more of defendant, and that a half-block up the street from the point at which he had overhauled defendant he found a hat resembling that which defendant had been wearing. James Speck, an employee of the theater, also witnessed the robbery from the foyer of the theater, but did not pursue the defendant. His testimony covering the events up to the defendant's departure was similar to that of witnesses Frankfourth and Hastings. Each of these four witnesses had a good opportunity to observe the defendant and testified unequivocally that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Powell, Cr. 7184
...v. Alonzo, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d 45, 47, 322 P.2d 42; People v. Ambrose, 155 Cal.App.2d 513, 520, 318 P.2d 181; People v. Quijada, 124 Cal.App.2d 422, 424, 268 P.2d 745; People v. Johnson, 21 Cal.App.2d 673, 674, 70 P.2d It was a factual question to determine whether the identification of t......
-
People v. Falls
...question about the identification was for the jury, and the evidence is entirely sufficient to support the conviction. People v. Quijada, 124 Cal.App.2d 422, 268 P.2d 745; People v. Shaheen, 120 Cal.App.2d 629, 261 P.2d It is next contended that the court erred in allowing evidence, during ......
-
People v. Barnett
...of the witnesses, if any, in giving their testimony (People v. Shaheen, 120 Cal.App.2d 629, 636, 261 P.2d 752; People v. Quijada, 124 Cal.App.2d 422, 424, 268 P.2d 745; People v. Johnson, 21 Cal.App.2d 673, 674, 70 P.2d 198). Furthermore, the identification testimony of the victim was suppo......
-
People v. Cahan
...to believe the testimony of defendant and the alibi witnesses. People v. Shivers, 139 Cal.App.2d 275, 293 P.2d 479; People v. Quijada, 124 Cal.App.2d 422, 425, 268 P.2d 745. The verdicts are supported by substantial Defendant made a motion to dismiss the information under Penal Code, sectio......