People v. Wochnick

• Decision Date: 16 June 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 4435
• Citation: 98 Cal.App.2d 124,219 P.2d 70
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WOCHNICK.

Page 70

219 P.2d 70

98 Cal.App.2d 124

PEOPLE v. WOCHNICK.

Cr. 4435.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

June 16, 1950.

Hearing Denied July 13, 1950.

Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender of County of Los Angeles, Noel B. Martin, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, Dan Kaufmann, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

WILSON, Justice.

Defendant was charged with the murder of one James Kibrick. He pleaded not guilty and on a trial before a jury was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to the state prison for life. His motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal is from the order denying the motion for new trial and from the judgment.

The only ground for appeal assigned by defendant which we need to consider is that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the details and results of a lie detector test to which defendant had been subjected.

Kibrick received the injuries which caused his death in his liquor store on the corner of Temple and Fremont streets in the city of Los Angeles. He had been severely beaten and cut, apparently with broken liquor bottles, about his face, head and hands and although those injuries alone would have probably caused his death, the immediate cause was a wound from a knife which had been plunged into his chest, piercing his heart. The knife belonged to the victim and was customarily kept beside the cash register.

Philip Anast testified he called at the liquor store to make a delivery and saw the victim lying on his back behind the counter in a pool of what seemed to be blood and other liquid; that defendant was straddling the legs of the victim in a more or less squatting position and it appeared to him as if defendant was just releasing the shirt front of the person on the floor. Defendant told the witness the man had been beaten and Anast ran out to call the police. When he returned to the store the victim was sitting in a chair between the counter and the shelves. He arose as they entered and Anast noticed what seemed to be a cigar butt protruding from the victim's shirt. He later identified the object as the taped handle of a knife.

Defendant testified that when he entered the store he saw no one; he turned to look back whereupon a man brushed by his right side and hit his shoulder and went past him toward the open door; he heard a moan which came from behind the counter; he looked over the counter and saw a man lying in the alleyway between the counter and the shelving and he went around to assist; he straddled and kneeled on one knee over the man and brushed the glass from under his hands and from his neck and endeavored to lift the victim to a sitting position; as he did so he noticed a big gash in the man's neck and decided it was a matter for the police and a doctor; as he stood up he noticed Anast.

At the time of trial defendant testified he did not see the knife protruding from the vicinity of Kibrick's heart as he bent over him but in a statement previously given to one of the officers he said that when he brushed the glass off Kilbrick he felt an instrument.

Defendant assigns as error the admission, over the repeated objections of his counsel, of the evidence of officer Zander in which he repeated a conversation between himself and defendant. The officer testified that he told defendant he had been placed on the lie detector for a test; that defendant having dealt with machinery the major portion of his life he was sure defendant would understand that a certain motivating force brings a certain effect provided the machinery is in operating order; he then explained to him the workings of the polygraph or lie detector; that it was a machine manufactured to register reactions, respiratory rate, pulse rate, and certain electrical emanations from the body and upon a basis of those factors the machine drew a graph from which certain conclusions could be drawn; that it is based on the premise that it takes more effort to state an untruth than it does a truth and that the effort is reflected on the graph; he stated to defendant that when he was asked his age, address and questions of that nature he of course answered truthfully and his answers established on the machine a normal indication of the effort required to answer truthfully a normal question; that defendant had said at one time that the reason he went into the store was because he noticed a similarity between his name and that of the person who conducted the store, yet when the operator of the machine gave him various names and he came to the name of the victim there was no indication on the graph that he had ever heard or seen that name before or had any knowledge of it; he said to defendant that they showed him five knives, one of which was the knife that was removed from the body of the victim; the operator showed him one knife at a time and asked him if he had ever seen that knife before and in each instance defendant stated he never had; when they showed him the knife that was removed from the body of the victim there was a violent reaction on the graph of the machine which indicated that his answer was an untruth; they showed him the same five knives again; the operator would take a knife from the drawer and lay it on the table in his hand; the second knife shown him was the knife removed from the body of the victim; in this instance the reaction was normal on the graph and operator looked up and saw defendant had his eyes closed; the operator said nothing but continued to tap the table with his empty hand and would ask him if he had seen this knife before and the graph indicated a normal reaction; then when he had repeated that method five times e asked defendant to open his eyes, held the knife in front of...