People v. Williams

Citation70 Cal.Rptr. 882,264 Cal.App.2d 885
Decision Date12 August 1968
Docket NumberCr. 13012
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John M. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

James L. Flournoy, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mark Christiansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

KAUS, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was charged as follows: Count I--grand theft auto; Count II--violation of section 10851 of the Vehicle Code; Count III---battery on Officer Alderson; Count IV--battery on Officer Pallas; Count V--battery on Officer Sands; and Count VI--battery on Officer Mize. 1 Defendant pleaded not guilty but admitted two prior convictions of automobile theft.

A jury found defendant guilty on Counts II, III, IV and V. He was acquitted on Count I. Count VI was dismissed after the jury reported itself unable to agree. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.

Mrs. Kass parked her 1960 white Pontiac in a parking lot at 11:00 a.m. on July 20, 1966. When she returned at 5:00 p.m. the car was gone. She reported it as stolen later that afternoon. It was returned to her by the police on July 24.

On July 22, after 8:00 p.m., Officer Alderson observed a 1960 white Pontiac make a right turn against a red traffic light without stopping. He pursued the car on his motorcycle. His red lights were on. The car stopped, defendant got out and ran between two houses. The officer pursued him on foot.

Defendant tried to escape by climbing over a fence. Alderson stopped him by grabbing his shirt. Defendant then struck the officer on the right shoulder. A fight ensued. Defendant grabbed the officer's holster and jerked it and his gun from his belt. At that time another officer, Pallas, arrived. Defendant swung his right fist at him and struck him on the right shoulder. Eventually the two officers subdued defendant and he was handcuffed.

Defendant was driven to the station by Officers Mize and Sands. Mize was driving, Sands was in the back seat with defendant. At one point during the drive defendant lifted both feet above the back seat (sic) 2 and kicked Mize in the back of the head. Sands then tried to subdue him. In attempting to do so Sands himself was kicked on the left side of the head. 3

Defendant testified to a totally different version of the fact. On July 22 he had been drinking all day at his girl friend's house. In the evening he started to walk home. He crossed a street against a red light. He then saw the officers coming and took off running. He justified the batteries of Alderson and Pallas as resistance to police brutality. The altercation in the car was provoked by insults and kicks administered by Sands. When he tried to protect himself from Sands' attacks, Mize clumbed over the seat and started to hit him. He did not kick Mize in the back of his head. During the entire sequence of events defendant was drunk. 4

Appointed counsel raises several issues. As far as the violation of section 10851 of the Vehicle Code is concerned, his argument is essentially an attempt to belittle the testimony of the victim and of Officer Alderson, coupled with a claim that the evidence is insufficient to show the specific intent necessary for a violation of section 10851.

While it is true that Alderson did not see too much of defendant when he started to give chase, his testimony as a whole leaves no doubt that the man he eventually caught up with was defendant. As far as Mrs. Kass is concerned, at the preliminary hearing, she had erroneously given the date of the disappearance of her car as July 22 and she was impeached with her testimony. The weight of the impeaching evidence was for the jury.

Turning to the specific intent required for a violation of section 10851, the evidence is ample. The car was taken by somebody. When the police attempted to stop defendant for a relatively minor violation, he fled the scene. People v. Hopkins, 214 Cal.App.2d 487, 491--493, 29 Cal.Rptr. 636 demonstrates that the general rule, announced in People v. McFarland, 58 Cal.2d 748, 754, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 376 P.2d 449 5 applies in prosecutions under section 10851 of the Vehicle Code.

Defendant's next point, that at most he was guilty of a violation of section 499b of the Penal Code (joy riding), is answered by the foregoing discussion.

It is next contended that the conviction on Counts III, IV and V is unconstitutional. The claim is made that nowhere does the Penal Code make it a separate crime to commit a battery on a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties.

A battery is a battery whoever may be the victim. It is simply that section 243 of the Penal Code increases the punishment if the victim is a peace officer and certain other requirements are satisfied. There is nothing to defendant's argument that the two sections are unconstitutional in failing to inform him of the nature of the crime with which he was charged. It is certainly too late in the day to argue that the statutory definition of battery is 'vague and indefinite' as defendant claims without supporting authority. Nor is defendant in a position to complain about the increased punishment. The information gave him ample notice that the People would attempt to prove facts justifying such punishment.

Finally defendant claims that his convictions on Counts II, III, IV and V should be reversed because the officers used excessive force in making the arrest. The facts surrounding the arrest and the later fracas in the car are conflicting. The conflict was resolved by the jury which, as we shall presently see, gave the facts careful consideration.

This brings us to the last point, one that is not raised by defendant but by the Attorney General.

It will be recalled that Count V charged a battery on Officers Sands, and Count VI a similar offense, on Officer Mize. The jury returned a verdict of 'guilty' on Count V but reported itself divided, eight to four, on Count VI. The People then moved to dismiss Count VI. The motion was granted. Then there followed a colloquy between the court and the foreman of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Romero, Cr. 21839
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 21, 1982
    ..."After giving this matter much consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we should do nothing." (People v. Williams (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 885, 889, 70 Cal.Rptr. 882.) Facts Defendant was charged with two counts of burglary. (Pen.Code, § 459.) The consolidated information charged de......
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1969
    ...64.) Flight upon apprehension is sufficient to show specific intent to deprive the owner of temporary possession. (People v. Williams, 264 A.C.A. 1022, 1025, 70 Cal.Rptr. 882.) It is true that possession plus flight was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in People v. Clark, 251 C......
  • Robert V., In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1982
    ...to deprive the owner of possession. (See People v. Miles (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 212, 218, 77 Cal.Rptr. 89; People v. Williams (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 885, 887-888, 70 Cal.Rptr. 882; People v. Parmenter (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 509, 511, 9 Cal.Rptr. 135; People v. Gibson (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 67, ......
  • People v. Almanza
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2012
    ...of possession. (See In re Robert V. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 815, 821; People v. Miles (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 212, 218; People v. Williams (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 885, 887-888; People v. Parmenter (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Add to that the evidence that only two weeks before defendant was o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT