People v. Williams

Decision Date20 February 1961
Docket NumberCr. 3661
Citation189 Cal.App.2d 254,11 Cal.Rptr. 142
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rawson McLain WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

John J. Fahey, San Francisco, for appellant. Herbert Chamberlin, San Francisco, of counsel.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Daniel A. Sharp, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

KAUFMAN, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, Rawson McLain Williams, and George Long, were jointly charged by information with manslaughter (Pen.Code, § 192). Both entered pleas of not guilty and were tried before a jury which found them guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The court denied their motions to reduce the charge to battery, their motions for a new trial, and then granted their motions for probation. The appellant was placed on probation for a period of 5 years, and as a condition of probation, confined in the county jail for 90 days, plus a fine of $500 with the imposition of sentence suspended during the period of probation. No appeal has been taken by Long. On this appeal from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, the appellant Williams contends that: 1) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; 2) the court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in its instructions to the jury, and in refusing to give the jury a form of verdict for battery; 3) the court erred in denying the motion for a reduction of the charge to battery.

We regard the following as a fair epitome of the factual situation which resulted in the death of Everett Ghiozzi and led to this prosecution. On Saturday evening, April 19, 1958, the appellant, as on many prior occasions, was serving as the substitute bartender at the Pomar Club, a restaurant and bar located on the corner of Mariposa and Potrero Streets in San Francisco. The appellant arrived at the Pomar Club about 8:15 p. m. The deceased, Everett Ghiozzi, owned a gas station across the street from the Pomar Club. He usually closed his station about 8:30 p. m. and was a frequent visitor to the Pomar Club. Ghiozzi was known to the appellant and was a good friend of the co-defendant, George Long. There were about 10-12 people in the bar during the evening, most of whom knew each other as well as the deceased.

About 9:30 p.m. Everett Ghiozzi, dressed in his dirty work clothes, entered with a customer. They had a drink or two. After his customer left, Ghiozzi went to the end of the bar to talk to Mrs. Sally Aichlmayr and her companion, Mrs. Root. Mrs. Root was sitting at one end of the bar; Mrs. Aichlmayr was standing up; Mrs. Fenton was sitting near them, on the third stool from the end. Ghiozzi went up and down the bar. Ghiozzi danced with Mrs. Fenton, then left and returned a few minutes later with his dog. The appellant swore at Ghiozzi and told him to remove the dog. Ghiozzi left and came back a few minutes later without the dog, turned to the appellant and said 'Are you happy now?' According to Mrs. Aichlmayr, Ghiozzi then went up to the appellant and asked if they could be friends and shake hands. The appellant cursed Ghiozzi, served him a drink, and asked for payment.

Ghiozzi then returned to the area of the bar where Mrs. Aichlmayr and Mrs. Root were. Mrs. Aichlmayr was a good friend of the deceased; he had made his home with her and her husband for several years. Mrs. Root lived in the same building with the Aichlmayrs and Ghiozzi and knew him casually. Ghiozzi kept trying to get Mrs. Aichlmayr and Mrs. Root to dance with him; they refused and he kept pestering them. Finally, Mrs. Root was provoked and threw her drink over her shoulder at him. The liquid hit Ghiozzi full in the face and splashed on his glasses. He removed his glasses and then picked up Mrs. Fenton's drink, a green creme de menthe, and threw it at Mrs. Root with the glass. The liquid hit her in the face and also splashed on the wall.

Immediately, the appellant told Ghiozzi to stop and came out from behind the bar, turning the large ring on his finger forward. The appellant grabbed Ghiozzi by the shoulder. Ghiozzi said something like 'you're not going to put me out,' and held his arms up but did not swing at the appellant. The appellant hit him on the left side of the mouth, said 'I'm not going to hit you any more', and returned to his post behind the bar. Ghiozzi stumbled sideways into some chairs and tables, and then landed on his back. He lay on the floor kicking his feet. There was blood on his left cheek. His glasses were on the bar. Ghiozzi then picked himself up, wiped some blood off his face, and returned to Mrs. Aichlmayr and Mrs. Root. Another argument started, and the appellant asked Long to take Ghiozzi outside. Long grabbed Ghiozzi's arms and pushed him outside, over his objections.

They were gone about 2 or 3 minutes; then Long returned to the bar, followed by Ghiozzi. Ghiozzi swore at Long and an argument started between Long, Ghiozzi and the appellant. The appellant again asked Long to take Ghiozzi outside. Long hit Ghiozzi on the ear with a closed fist. Ghiozzi fell and hit his head on the concrete floor. Long again took Ghiozzi outside and returned to the bar.

Ghiozzi reappeared a few minutes later with his face washed, and the appellant served him a drink. Ghiozzi and Long began to argue again and the appellant asked Nunez to take him outside. Nunez pushed Ghiozzi all the way outside, but both of them returned a few minutes later. Ghiozzi asked for another drink and was served one by the appellant. Another argument started nad Ghiozzi insulted the appellant. The appellant hit him again and tried to push him outside. Ghiozzi tore at the appellant's sleeve and scratched him. After Ghiozzi got up, Nunez again pushed him outside and tried to keep him there. When Ghiozzi tried to come back inside, several of the people in the bar went outside to help.

Outside, Ghiozzi was arguing with Long. Long hit him again and Ghiozzi fell on the sidewalk and hit the back of his head on a car bumper. He lay there motionless for a few minutes and then Long and Nunez dragged Ghiozzi across the street to the service station. Ghiozzi had blood on his face and left ear; he had a cut lip and a cut near his eye. He cursed at them. When Mrs. Fenton and Mrs. Pritchard came to the service station and said they would take care of Ghiozzi, Nunez and Long returned to the bar.

Ghiozzi returned to the bar about 10 minutes later. Everyone asked him to leave but he refused. Nunez slapped him twice but Ghiozzi did not fall down. Ghiozzi, however, was very unsteady on his feet and fell down twice. He hit his head on the cigarette machine, then stumbled up and fell again by the bowling alley. While he lay on the floor, his whole body was shaking. He asked Nunez to help him home. Nunez braced him under the arms and they began to walk out. As they stepped outside, Ghiozzi asked for his glasses, which were still on the bar. Ghiozzi saw Long a few feet away and grabbed at him. Long hit him and Ghiozzi sat down on the floor. Finally, about 11:00 p. m., Nunez took Ghiozzi out of the Pomar Club for the last time to Ghiozzi's father's home, which was only a few houses away. The entire sequence of events from the first blow struck by the appellant took from 30 to 45 minutes. Mr. Ghiozzi, Sr. scolded his son and thought he was just badly scratched. As the senior Ghiozzi was busy, a family friend, Mr. Ghirarduzzi, took Ghiozzi to the San Francisco General Hospital with the help of another unidentified person.

Ghiozzi was admitted to the hospital at 11:42 p. m. and first placed in a wheel chair where he slept for about an hour. He did not fall from the chair. When Ghiozzi was taken to the treatment room at the hospital, Mr. Ghirarduzzi left and told Ghiozzi's father that the boy was in a bad way. John Ghiozzi, Sr. went to the Pomar Club and saw the appellant, who admitted hitting Everett. Long and Nunez were there and told Ghiozzi, Sr. that they had tried to stop the fight. Appellant remembered this conversation but not its substance. Ghiozzi, Sr. returned to the hospital with Mr. Ghirarduzzi about 1:00 a. m. but was not permitted to see his son. When Ghiozzi, Sr. was walking home from the hospital, he met Long. When the appellant and Mr. Fenton closed up the Pomar Club for the night, they found Everett Ghiozzi's glasses on the street outside.

The hospital records indicated that at the time of admission, Ghiozzi had facial injuries and did not appear to be critically injured; there was no bleeding behind the eardrum to indicate a skull fracture. He appeared to be very intoxicated and was so obstreperous that he had to be strapped down in order to be examined and treated. About 1:15 a. m. he wiggled off the examining table, but did not fall on the floor. Between 2:30 and 3:00 a. m., after his wounds had ben treated and x-rays taken, Ghiozzi was put into an isolation room, in a bed which was 6"'-7"' off the floor. The wet x-rays were read about 2:00 a. m. and did not indicate a skull fracture. He was asleep and a doctor looked in on him every hour. About 6:00 a. m., he was quiet; at about 6:50 a. m., the doctor on duty found Ghiozzi lying on the floor dead. The dry x-rays which were read about 7:00 a. m. clearly showed the skull fracture.

The doctors testified that death had occurred about 6:40 a. m. and had been caused by head injuries with a skull fracture and brain damage or hemorrhage in back of the head; that because the major hemorrhages were older than 6 hours, the deceased already had the fatal injuries at the time of his admission to the hospital and that the fall from the bed at the hospital did not cause his death. Ti was not clear whether death would have occurred even if the skull fracture had been diagnosed and treated when the deceased was admitted to the hospital.

The autopsy surgeon testified that the deceased had received...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 29, 1972
    ... ... (People v. Marshall, 48 Cal.2d 394, 405, 309 P.2d 456; People v. Meyer, 216 Cal.App.2d 618, 629, 31 Cal.Rptr. 285; People v. Williams, ... 189 Cal.App.2d 254, 265, 11 Cal.Rptr. 142; People v. Stewart, 188 Cal.App.2d 88, 90, 10 Cal.Rptr. 217.) And it is of no moment that Gonzalez' original charges were described as violations 'of section 217 of the California Penal Code.' It is the language of the charge that controls. (See ... ...
  • People v. Eppers
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 1962
    ...or battery (see People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768, 775, 228 P.2d 281; People v. Dodel, 77 Cal. 293, 294, 19 P. 484; People v. Williams, 189 Cal.App.2d 254, 265, 11 Cal.Rptr. 142) and, although not expressed in his brief, it is assumed that he contends the evidence would establish criminal neg......
  • People v. Chapman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1962
    ...themselves. It certainly could have no necessary tendency to preclude them from finding such verdict.' See also People v. Williams, 189 Cal.App.2d 254, 264, 11 Cal.Rptr. 142; People v. Gonzales, 187 Cal.App.2d 769, 10 Cal.Rptr. 12; People v. Elliott, 115 Cal.App.2d 410, 252 P.2d A number of......
  • People v. Singleton
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1987
    ...to overburden and confuse the jury. (People v. Wade (1959) 53 Cal.2d 322, 333, 1 Cal.Rptr. 683, 348 P.2d 116; People v. Williams (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 254, 267, 11 Cal.Rptr. 142.) In order to be guilty on a theory of aiding and abetting, a defendant must have (1) known the unlawful purpose ......
  • 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