People v. Ross
| Decision Date | 21 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8509 |
| Citation | 229 Cal.App.2d 344,40 Cal.Rptr. 296 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry Nathaniel ROSS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Fitzgerald & Davis, by Morrise Davis, * Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., George J. Roth, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant and two codefendants, Jeter and Hampton, were convicted by a jury of violating Penal Code, section 211: robbery. Jeter and Hampton have not appealed.
The victim of the robbery (Stoskopf), riding a streetcar from the city of Downey to Los Angeles, shared a drink of whiskey with appellant from a bottle he was carrying and as a consequence appellant guided Stoskopf to a poolhall where Stoskopf started to play a game of pool with a man other than appellant. Stoskopf abruptly terminated the play when some money he had left in a pocket on the table disappeared without explanation. Stoskopf left the poolhall and after two unsuccessful attempts to have someone call a cab for him, he noticed an MTA bus depot in the vicinity. He knocked on the door of the bus depot and received no reply. At about this time he saw defendant Jeter about twenty-five to thirty-five yards behind him. He also saw defendant Hampton across the street. He did not see appellant. Almost concurrently with the observations mentioned, Stoskopf was attacked from behind and knocked down. Before losing consciousness, Stoskopf saw Jeter break the cane which Stopkopf carried and saw appellant running away from the scene.
Phyllis Williams, an eye-witness, testified that she was sitting in her car in front of the MTA depot waiting for her husband, an MTA driver, when Stoskopf walked up to the depot accompanied by Hampton. Jeter and appellant were across the street. As Stoskopf left the door of the bus depot, Jeter and appellant crossed the street approximately 12 to 15 feet from her car. She heard Jeter say, The men then disappeared. She heard Stoskopf yell for help, and saw five men beating him. She left her car, ran to the bus depot and called her husband, whereupon he and several other drivers ran out and apprehended the attackers.
Forty dollars and a bottle of whiskey were taken from Stoskopf.
Appellant, on cross-examination, was asked by way of impeachment: 'When you talked to [Officer Myers] at the scene there of the arrest didn't you make the following statement to Officer Myers:
In previous testimony, appellant had denied seeing Slaughter-House that night and denied making the quoted statement.
Since the quoted statement was introduced by the prosecution, appellant urges that the People are bound by it and that its exculpatory nature requires a reversal of the judgment. Appellant relies on the cases of People v. Griego, 136 Cal.App.2d 51, 55-56, 288 P.2d 175; and People v. Mercer, 210 Cal.App.id 153, 158, 26 Cal.Rptr. 502, 504, which hold that '* * * if the prosecution presents as a part of its case a statement Cal.App.2d 153, 158, 26 Cal.Rptr. 502, 504, for the alleged crime, the prosecution is bound by that evidence in the absence of proof to the contrary.'
The general principle announced by the two cases cited has no application to the facts of this case since the case of the People was based only in part on the cross-examination referred to. (People v. Acosta, 45 Cal.2d 538, at page 542, 290 P.2d 1, at page 4.) In Acosta, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miles
...by inference from all the circumstances of the case. (People v. Hall, 253 Cal.App.2d 1051, 1054, 61 Cal.Rptr. 676; People v. Ross, 229 Cal.App.2d 344, 346, 40 Cal.Rptr. 296.) As to defendant Prince, his admissions to the police were sufficient evidence of his intent to be a lookout for the ......