People v. Sanders
Decision Date | 26 June 1963 |
Docket Number | Cr. 8554 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Will Otis SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Carl A. Earles, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By an amended information the defendant Sanders and Jack O'Neal Hackett were charged with the crime of robbery. (Pen.Code, § 211.) It was alleged that money was taken from Henry F. Zander, who was 'a person who was then and there performing his duties as operator of a motor vehicle used for the transportation of persons for hire.' 1 It was further alleged that at the time of the commission of the offense, the defendants 'were armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, switch-blade knife.' Each defendant waived his right to trial by jury. The defendant Sanders was convicted of robbery of the first degree. Hackett was acquitted. While the document which has been assumed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment was not skillfully drawn, 2 no question as to its sufficiency has been raised by the respondent. We treat it as constituting a sufficient compliance with the law. (See People v. Robinson, 43 Cal.2d 143, 145, 271 P.2d 872.)
The principal contention of the defendant Sanders is that the evidence as to his identity as one of the participants in the commission of the crime was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The witness Zander testified that he was a cab driver and that about ten minutes before six o'clock on the morning of February 15, 1962, two men entered his cab as passengers and directed him to take them to another part of the City of Compton. He did so. After he alighted from his cab and went arount the vehicle and opened the rear door, Sanders placed a knife against his stomach. The exposed blade was about four inches long. Upon the demand of Sanders, the cab driver gave him his change. Sanders' companion took the cab driver's wallet from his pocket. The wallet contained about $15.
Portions of the cab driver Zander's testimony under cross-examination were as follows: 'Q. Were you too scared, sir, to pay much attention to anything? A. Well, I was pretty well scared all right. * * *
Q. Were you too scared to pay too much attention to anything? A. Yes. Q. Now, in answer to one of the questions which the District Attorney asked you * * * you referred to the Defendant, Sanders. Did you say, in referring to something he said, 'It might not be him but it looked like him?' Was that one of your answers to the District Attorney's question? A. I believe it was, yes.' The witness could not recall whether the robber that he testified was Sanders had a mustache at the time of the offense.
On redirect examination the cab driver testified in part as follows: He did express a doubt as to whether the defendant Hackett was the man who participated with the defendant Sanders in the commission of the offense. 3 The witness further said that he could not tell whether the knife used 'was a switch-blade, paring knife, or anything.'
On inquiry by the court, the cab driver testified as follows:
On recross examination, the cab driver Zander gave the following testimony: In response to further inquiry, the witness stated that at the preliminary hearing he had testified as follows: '
The defendant Sanders testified in his own behalf. He denied that he had committed the offense charged and said that he was at home in bed at the time when the robbery occurred. He further testified that he had had a mustache for 'over two years.' The defendant's alibi was supported by testimony of his mother, his brother and his sister.
The appeal is without merit. The governing law is stated as follows in People v. Alonzo, 158 Cal.App.2d 45, at page 47, 322 P.2d 42, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corey, In re
...and no corroborative evidence is required. (People v. Hornes, 168 Cal.App.2d 314, 318-319, 335 p.2d 756; People v. Sanders, 217 Cal.App.2d 606, 610, 31 Cal.Rptr. 707.) Nor is it a valid objection that the accused is identified by only one witness. (People v. Whitson, 25 Cal.2d 593, 604, 154......
-
People v. Smith
...(People v. Williams, 183 Cal.App.2d 715, 6 Cal.Rptr. 881; People v. McLaine, 204 Cal.App.2d 96, 22 Cal.Rptr. 72; and People v. Sanders, 217 Cal.App.2d 606, 31 Cal.Rptr. 707). With these appellate principles in mind, we conclude that there is ample evidence in the record to support the jury'......
-
People v. Debnam
...of the trier of fact and will not be overturned unless the evidence supporting it is inherently improbable. (People v. Sanders, 217 Cal.App.2d 606, 610, 31 Cal.Rptr. 707; People v. Lindsay, 227 Cal.App.2d 482, 493--494, 38 Cal.Rptr. 755.) Appellant was found in possession of the stolen prop......
-
People v. Ross
...of the witness' credibility and reliability. (People v. Alonzo, 158 Cal.App.2d 45, 47, 322 P.2d 42; see also People v. Sanders, 217 Cal.App.2d 606, 610, 31 Cal.Rptr. 707.) 2. The trial judge abused his discretion in denying defense counsel permission to use a particular 'test instance' 3 in......