People v. Roberts
Citation | 256 Cal.App.2d 488,64 Cal.Rptr. 70 |
Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
Docket Number | Cr. 6062 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | people of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert J. ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Patricia Lane, Carmel, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lunch, Atty. Gen. of State of California, Robert R. Granucci, Lawrence R. Mansir, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of Penal Code, section 288a. From an order suspending imposition of sentence and granting probation on certain conditions, he appeals.
As a result of complaints about homosexual activity in a park's public rest room Deputy Sheriff Gingery and Detective Martin were assigned to investigate. They stationed themselves in a space adjacent to the men's rest room, set apart from that room by a double wood wall separated by an air space of approximately 1 1/2 inches. Several holes were drilled in the wall through which the officers could see what might be called the public portion of the men's rest room--that area visible as one entered the room.
On the afternoon of January 27, 1966, around 3 p.m., Officer Gingery was standing on a two-by-four about six feet off the ground, peering through one of the holes. He saw a man whom he knew by name copulating his mouth with the sexual organ of a man unknown to the officers. At the same time Officer Martin was looking through a hole about two or three feet from the floor. He also saw the two men engaged in the act. They were observed by the officers from a distance of 10 or 12 feet for from 20 to 45 seconds. There was no artificial light in the rest room. The lighting conditions were described by one of the officers as fair.
Officer Gingery took notes at the time to assist in identifying the participants. He saw the full left side and profile of the person unknown to him. Referring to the same person Officer Martin in his report said he 'might be able to identify this subject.'
The above related incident occurred on the first day of the investigation. The observations continued for several days during which time many similar acts took place in view of the officers. After the first day the officers arranged to have a concealed photographer take pictures of persons entering and leaving the rest room. Thereafter the officers observed another homosexual act in the rest room. Pictures of the suspects were taken outside of the rest room. In his report of that act, made that day, Officer Gingery stated that 'Suspect 8,' one of the participants, was a 'schoolteacher' (naming him) from (a named)
When the pictures of the later suspects were developed the officers concluded that their positive identification of the schoolteacher was erroneous. In a supplementary report it was explained by Officer Gingery, 'From these photos a positive identification was made on subject 8.' This time the positive identification was not of the schoolteacher but of a different person. The supplementary report continued:
Defendant was arrested two weeks after the January 27 incident. The alleged accomplice was also arrested. He pleaded guilty. He testified for defendant at the trial, admitting his guilt but denying that defendant was the other party involved. Defendant's mother testified that he had been with her the entire afternoon of January 27. Defendant himself did not testify.
The conviction of Roberts rests entirely on his identification by the officers. There is no corroboration.
We are bound on this appeal by the well-known rule expressed in People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885, 256 P.2d 911, 916, as follows: The direct eyewitness testimony here of the two officers must be deemed substantial evidence. (See People v. Sanders, 206 Cal.App.2d 479, 482, 23 Cal.Rptr. 725; People v. Muse, 196 Cal.App.2d 662, 664, 16 Cal.Rptr. 768.) Their credibility was for the jury to determine. (See People v. Barbera, 50 Cal.2d 688, 692, 328 P.2d 973; People v. Wade, 215 Cal.App.2d 49, 52, 29 Cal.Rptr. 822.)
Nevertheless, we think that the officers' identification of an unknown person through peepholes under 'fair' lighting conditions, the deferred arrest and the complete lack of corroboration, make this a 'close case' under the principle discussed in Witkin, California Criminal Procedure, section 755, pages 728--729. This belief is fortified by the officers' demonstrated lack of expertise in making identifications.
'When the case against a defendant is a close one, an error which otherwise would not be prejudicial may justify a new trial.' (People v. Newson, 37 Cal.2d 34, 46, 230 P.2d 618, 625; see also People v. Moore, 43 Cal.2d 517, 531, 275 P.2d 485; People v. Baker, 42 Cal.2d 550, 577, 268 P.2d 705; People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 659, 140 P.2d 828.) Certain language of the case of People v. Adams, 14 Cal.2d 154, 93 P.2d 146, which involved a charged violation of Penal Code section 288 seems appropriate here. The court there stated (pp. 167--168, 93 P.2d p. 152):
We consider defendant's assignments of error in the light of the 'close case' rule.
Defendant urges error in the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction to the effect that if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether the police officers could identify the defendant from their place of concealment the jury should acquit him. This instruction pinpointed defendant's whole case--that his identification by the officers was mistaken.
The court did instruct the jury in the language of Penal Code, section 1096. 1 Penal Code, section 1096a provides: 'In charging a jury, the court may read to the jury section 1096 of this code, and no further instruction on the subject of the presumption of innocence or defining reasonable doubt need be given.' However, it has been held that where an additional reasonable doubt instruction which points up the theory of the defense is requested, it is error (notwithstanding Pen.Code, § 1096a) to refuse to give it.
In People v. Granados, 49 Cal.2d 490, 319 P.2d 346, the court instructed the jury in the words of Penal Code, section 1096. The defendant claimed error in the court's refusal to give a requested instruction as follows (pp. 495--496, 319 P.2d p. 350): 'That if the jurors had a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code or attempted violation of said section on the date of October 1, 1956, then they could not return a verdict of guilty of first degree murder based upon the theory that there was an unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code.' The Supreme Court also stated at page 496, 319 P.2d at page 350:
In People v. Kane, 27 Cal.2d 693, 166 P.2d 285, the standard instruction of Penal Code, section 1096 was read to the jury. The trial judge refused a requested instruction, "Before you can convict the defendant in this case, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the property taken was against the will and without the consent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Aston
...247 [corroboration]; People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 189-190, 84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847 [motive]; People v. Roberts (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 488, 492-494, 64 Cal.Rptr. 70 [identification]; People v. Gomez (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 486, 490, 100 Cal.Rptr. 896 [alibi]; People v. Sanchez (19......
-
State v. Pilcher
...255 Ark. at 229, 500 S.W.2d at 371; People v. Hurd, 5 Cal.App.3d 865, 877, 85 Cal.Rptr. 718, 726 (1970); People v. Roberts, 256 Cal.App.2d 488, 495, 64 Cal.Rptr. 70, 74 (1967); People v. Ragsdale, 177 Cal.App.2d 676, 679, 2 Cal.Rptr. 640, 641--642 The marriage relationship is not only a val......
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...an instruction outlining an area of specific doubt it must be given in a proper case. Defendant relies upon People v. Roberts, 256 Cal.App.2d 488, 64 Cal.Rptr. 70 (1967) wherein the court stated (p. 493, 64 Cal.Rptr. p. 70): "However, it has been held that where an additional reasonable dou......
-
People v. Adams
...were made were matters to be considered by the triers of fact. The situation is governed by the recent decision in People v. Roberts (1967) 256 A.C.A. 537, 64 Cal.Rptr. 70, where this court said: 'We are bound on this appeal by the well-known rule expressed in People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...(Mich. Ct. App. 1976) (defendant forced cellmate to fellate other prisoners and was waiting his turn when caught). People v. Roberts, 64 Cal. Rptr. 70 (Ct. App. 1967) (multiple activity in a public toilet, defendant charged with fellating another observed by police surveillance). People v. ......