People v. Yeager

• Decision Date: 14 February 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. 6681
• Citation: 55 Cal.2d 374,359 P.2d 261,10 Cal.Rptr. 829
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 359 P.2d 261 PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Frederick Carl YEAGER, Appellant.

Page 829

10 Cal.Rptr. 829

55 Cal.2d 374, 359 P.2d 261

PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Frederick Carl YEAGER, Appellant.

Cr. 6681.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 14, 1961.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1961.

Carl B. Shapiro, Fairfax, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

SCHAUER, Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order, made after his conviction of robbery, which grants probation without imposition of sentence. At the time of the offense defendant was 17 years of age. A complaint charging defendant with the robbery was filed in the justice court. That court certified defendant to the juvenile court, the juvenile court remanded defendant to the justice court, and the ensuing proceedings were under the general criminal law. On this appeal defendant's principal attacks are upon the juvenile court's remand for prosecution under the criminal law. Defendant also urges that his motion to disqualify the trial judge for bias (made under Code Civ.Proc § 170, subd. 5, prior to the effective date of § 170.6) was improperly denied, and that the evidence shows that defendant did not have the specific intent which is an element of robbery. We have concluded that defendant's contentions are without merit and that the order appealed from should be affirmed.

A complaint filed in the Lakeport justice court charged defendant, together with John Ward and Dale Woodall, ¹ with having robbed Gene Bigham of $96 on July 5, 1959. The justice court made its 'Order Suspending Proceedings against Minor under Eighteen and Certifying to Juvenile Court.' The probation officer then filed in the juvenile court a petition which avers that defendant 'is a person within the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (m) of section 700 of * * * the Welfare and Institutions Code' ² in that he 'wilfully, unlawfully and forcibly' and 'by fear and violence' took $96 from Bigham's person in violation of Penal Code, § 211; the petition prays that the court declare defendant a ward of the juvenile court and that he be dealt with as provided in the Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, div. 2, part 1, ch. 2, comprising §§ 550-966).

At the ensuing juvenile court hearing defendant appeared with his father and his attorney. The probation officer appeared but took no part in the proceedings. All evidence was presented by the district attorney, without interposition of question or comment by the court or defendant's attorney. Such evidence consisted of testimony of defendant and his father and a transcribed statement voluntarily made by defendant to a deputy sheriff shortly after the crime.

The evidence of the circumstances of the robbery was as follows: On the evening of July 4, 1959, Ward, Woodall, defendant and three other boys, with 'about three cases of half quarts of beer,' drove in Ward's car from Marin County, where they resided, to Lake County. They attended a dance, stole hubcaps from parked automobiles, and drank beer. Ward, Woodall and defendant then drove from the parking lot near the resort where the dance was held and saw the victim Bigham walking along a road. According to defendant's statement to the deputy sheriff, 'Johnny (Ward) * * * turned the car around and came back and stopped and got out. * * * Then he told the guy to get in the car. I think Woody (Dale Woodall) hit the guy before he got in the car. We started driving down a * * * deserted road, and johnny stopped the car. On the way down Johnny said let's see how much money you have. We stopped the car and told the guy to get out. Then Johnny told the guy he was going to keep the money. He had taken the money while we were driving. The guy said no, I will give you twenty dollars. Woody said take the twenty dollars and let him go. I told Johnny to give the money back to the guy, that this was a felony not a misdemeanor, and Johnny * * * refused to give the money back.

'Johnny hit the guy in the face. I swung at the guy, trying to scare him, but I missed him * * * (Defendant testified, however, that 'I missed him and I also hit him twice * * *.') Johnny gave the guy about forty-eight dollars and kept fifty. I told him to give all the money back.'

Ward, Woodall and defendant rejoined their three companions and two other boys from Marin County, and ate at a restaurant. There Ward gave defendant $8 of the proceeds of the robbery. The eight boys agreed to 'go out and roll somebody,' drove a few miles with this in view, then 'decided it was taking too much of a chance.' After they decided to go home they saw a sheriff's car and Ward 'took off at a high rate of speed to try and lose the cop.' The boys temporarily eluded the officers, had a blowout, and drove the car into a dump ground in an attempt to hide. Defendant fell asleep and awakened when the officers discovered the boys.

Defendant further testified as follows:

'Q. When you drink, Fred, do you feel you have to go out and hurt some other human being? A. No, sir.

'Q. Have you any explanation as to why this thing happened? A. No, sir.

'Q. It couldn't just be drink, could it, Fred? A. No, sir. I think maybe the drinking sort of made-I mean you sort of forget the responsibility you have, from your drinking. I don't know. Maybe I guess we just did it. I believe probably the beer was the main part of it, because you just forget all the responsibility you have of other people but yourself.

'Q. Do you feel you forgot it so far this night that you had to hurt somebody else? A. I don't know, sir. I don't know. I just went out of my head.'

The evidence as to defendant's background and prior record which was presented to the juvenile court was as follows: On July 4, 1959, defendant was staying alone at his family home in Marin County. His mother and father were in the midwest where the father was attending a business convention. After discussion the parents had decided that defendant was a responsible boy who could be left alone. Defendant had had no disciplinary problems at home or at school. He had completed three years of high school with an A minus average in a university preparatory course and planned, after graduation from high school, to study electrical engineering. He had worked part time during his school years and in the summer of 1959 was employed full time as assistant to a veterinarian.

Defendant had not previously appeared in court and had no police record. However, he had twice been interviewed by the police. He testified that on one of these occasions, when he was a freshman in high school, a friend who was caring for the house of a 'fairly rich' man told defendant 'to come up and he would get the house open, and they had a nice Thunder Bird, and a nice big bar, and I went up there and we took out the Thunder Bird and drove it for one or two hours and came back and drank * * * a fairly large amount of beer, and * * * pushed each other around, (and) we went through a plate glass window.' On another occasion, according to defendant's testimony, he and some companions 'threw some water balloons at a car and we knew the guy, and the Police Officer came up and questioned us, and the guy said he knew what was going on and he didn't care because we were just having a lot of fun. They still took us up to the Police station and they took our names but they didn't do anything to us.'

It seems apparent that the above mentioned conduct was not viewed with any substantial regret or repentance by defendant; likewise, the trip to the police station obviously did not deter him from subsequently participating in the grave crime of which he stands convicted. The trial judge, whether sitting in a juvenile court proceeding or in the trial of a criminal case, manifestly would have been derelict in his duty, both to defendant and to the state, if he failed to consider all of these circumstances.

That defendant had reached some degree of sophistication in the use of alcoholic beverages is indicated by his testimony that he had been drinking for 'four and a half or five months'; 'if I want to get high I drink a lot, and if I don't I just drink a little * * *. Whenever I happen to run into somebody and I have a chance to get some beer or sometimes if I feel depressed we go out and drink our beer and drive around and come home.' Defendant's parents did not know of his drinking until they were informed of the robbery of July 5, 1959. His father testified as follows:

'Q. Have you any explanation for this, Mr. Yeager, that would be helpful? A. No, sir. I walk the floor at night.

'Q. Trying to resolve in your mind why this happened? A. Why it happened. I feel certainly it will never happen again, I feel as a result of this.

'Q. Well, do you think if you would tell the boy to quit drinking, do you think he would obey you? A. I think if I asked him to give his definite word, he would.'

After presenting the foregoing evidence the district attorney said, 'I have no further questions, Your Honor.' The judge (still proceeding in the juvenile court) asked, 'Is there any legal reason why these boys should not go back to the Justice Court?' The district attorney replied, 'No legal reason, Your Honor.' Defendant's attorney said nothing.

The juvenile court then made the following order: 'Good cause appearing therefor, it is ordered that Frederick Carl Yeager, the juvenile above-named, * * * is remanded to the Justice Court * * * for further proceedings under a Complaint now on file therein, charging him with * * * robbery.' Following such remand the justice court, sitting as committing magistrate, ordered that defendant be held to answer, and the district attorney filed an information charging defendant with the robbery.

Defendant was arraigned in the superior court before the Honorable Benjamin C. Jones, the judge who had conducted the juvenile court proceedings and the only judge of the superior court in Lake County. Defendant...