People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4308 |
| Citation | 222 Cal.App.2d 616,35 Cal.Rptr. 280 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Horace Lee WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Sherwood M. Sullivan, San Francisco, for appellant (Under appointment of District Court of Appeal).
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., of State of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Michael R. Marron, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of burglary. The owner of the things alleged to have been taken in the course of the burglary testified that the doors of his home were locked when he left in the morning, and that when he returned in the evening an electric iron, a hatchet and several hand tools were missing. One of the neighbors testified that she saw defendant leaving the front door of the burglarized home, and later saw him come out of the back door carrying an iron and a hatchet. Another neighbor saw him leave the house with a 'bundle' in his hand, but she could not say what it was. Later, defendant returned, approached the two neighbors, asked one of them whether she knew him and where she had seem him, and threatened one of them. Defendant did not testify at the trial, but presented alibi witnesses who testified that they had been with him at the time of the burglary.
The only point made on appeal is that defendant's counsel at the trial was denied the right to see a certain police report. Counsel was shown a report at one time early in the trial, but it was taken back by the district attorney and the court refused to require the police to produce it at certain points during the trial. Near the end of the trial, however, the court caused it to be delivered to defendant's counsel. The reason for the court's ruling was that demand should have been made earlier than at trial. Appellant's counsel before us, who was not trial counsel, argued that he could not point specifically to prejudice because he did not know what was in the statement which was not introduced in evidence nor marked for identification. We were concerned that the contents of the statement might have been helpful to appellant at trial, and we caused the record on appeal to be augmented to include a copy of the report and invited counsel for appellant to point out anything which might have been useful to appellant. It has been impossible for counsel to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Reyes
...the failure to comply with a discovery order. ((People v. Morris, 226 Cal.App.3d (2d) 16 (37 Cal.Rptr. 741);) People v. Wilson, 222 Cal.App.2d 616, 617--618 (35 Cal.Rptr. 280).) ( ) (The) argument that ( ) (Reyes) might have discovered helpful evidence had ( ) (he) learned about Mrs. Routh ......
-
People v. Ing
...that any error in this respect was prejudicial to him and caused a miscarriage of justice. He has failed to do so. (People v. Wilson, 222 Cal.App.2d 616, 35 Cal.Rptr. 280.) The judgment is PIERCE, P. J., and FRIEDMAN, J., concur. ...
-
Cohen v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial Dist.
...v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 424, 340 P.2d 593; People v. Renchie, 201 Cal.App.2d 1, 2, 19 Cal.Rptr. 734; People v. Wilson, 222 Cal.App.2d 616, 617, 35 Cal.Rptr. 280.) The purpose of permitting pretrial discovery is 'to promote the orderly ascertainment of the truth' (Jones v. Superior......
-
Perkins v. Dawson
... ... the respondent had a good defense to the original claim which would be likely to result in a favorable judgment if asserted in a new trial (Wilson v. Wilson, 55 Cal.App.2d 421, 427, 130 P.2d 782). It is the general rule that a motion to set aside a default judgment is addressed to the sound ... ...