People v. Watson
| Decision Date | 21 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6719 |
| Citation | 2 Cal.Rptr. 53,177 Cal.App.2d 296 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack WATSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Bernard S. Jefferson, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of violating the Dangerous Weapons Control Law (Pen.Code, § 12021). * He has appealed from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
At approximately 5:00 p. m., on April 16, 1958, Officer Deemer and his partner, Officer Fimple, went to 747 East Adams, in Los Angeles, where they found defendant in bed in a room on the second floor. Upon pulling the covers back, they discovered a fully loaded automatic with a shell in the chamber and a loaded .38 revolver lying approximately an inch from his hand. Beside the guns was a handkerchief, folded and tied, that contained some ten .38 shells. Defendant told Officer Deemer that 'these guns belonged to him'; that 'he had been having some trouble with a guy'; and that he kept the guns 'for his protection.' Defendant made similar statements to Officer Fimple a few minutes after his arrest, in the police car in front of the house. Defendant also stated that he obtained the guns through a gambling transaction. It was stipulated that defendant had been convicted of grand theft, a felony, in December, 1950, in Alameda County.
At the trial, defendant denied possession of, or any knowledge of, the guns, and denied making the statements to which the officers testified. Although defendant owned the house, he was not living there, his residence being at 1608 South Wilton Place. Defendant's story was that he had driven over to 747 East Adams around 9:30 that morning and played poker for awhile; that during the course of the morning he had eaten some barbecued pork spareribs which caused him to become sick and to vomit; that he fell over the table, and that the next thing he remembered was when the officers awakened him. He claims to have been suffering from ulcers for approximately seven years and that his doctor had advised him not to eat such food.
Brent E. Beaumont testified that he had lived at 747 East Adams for several months and had been the sole occupant of the room where defendant was found in bed; that upon defendant's becoming ill, the witness and two other men assisted defendant to the witness's room and put him to bed; that the guns in question belonged to the witness; that he kept them loaded under his pillow for he intended to take them with him for sport shooting when he went to the mountains on a weekend or on a fishing trip.
The testimony of two other witnesses supported defendant's story as to where he resided and that he became ill and was put to bed at the place where he was arrested.
In seeking a reversal defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction; (2) the court committed prejudicial error in connection with the cross-examination of witness Beaumont, and (3) that it also erred in permitting Officer Deemer to give certain testimony in rebuttal. We find no merit in any of these contentions.
In passing on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction we must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence. People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778. When thus tested it is manifest that there is ample evidence to sustain the judgment. The testimony of Officer Deemer as to what he observed when he pulled back the covers on the bed and defendant's statements to him and Officer Fimple amply support the implied finding that defendant owned or at least had possession of the guns found in the bed with him.
Defendant points out that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction 'where such evidence establishes at best speculation or suspicion or guesswork as to defendant's guilt.' He seems to argue that the evidence in this case falls in that category. To this end he emphasizes the testimony of his witnesses in support of his story. In making this type of approach defendant overlooks his position before a reviewing court. In effect, he is suggesting that this court reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses and reweight the evidence. This, of course, we have no power to do. People v. Gould, 111 Cal.App.2d 1, 8, 243 P.2d 809. Illustrative of defendant's failure to recognize these principles is his contention that the testimony of the officer relative to defendant's admission when arrested that the guns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vanderburg
...evidence is properly determinable by the trier of fact. (People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 9 Rptr. 793, 357 P.2d 1049; People v. Watson, 177 Cal.App.2d 296, 2 Cal.Rptr. 53.) Appellant claims that the court erred in instructing the jury. But the charge was correct in form and content. The cou......