People v. York, Cr. 1423
| Decision Date | 08 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1423 |
| Citation | 174 Cal.App.2d 305,344 P.2d 811 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wallace Reid YORK, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harold D. Cornell, San Diego, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Sweet Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was charged with the crime of murder (Penal Code, § 187) in that on or about the 18th day of March, 1952, he did murder one Yale B. Rediker, and in a second count of the information appellant was charged with attempted robbery of said Yale B. Rediker. It was further alleged that at the time of the commission of said offense appellant was armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a gun, and that appellant had been previously convicted in the state of Texas of four felonies; one on June 27, 1949 (theft of an automobile), one on July 14, 1949 (forgery), one on October 16, 1950 (burglary), and one on October 18, 1950 (robbery with firearms). Appellant admitted the first two prior convictions and the last two were stricken by the court upon information offered by the district attorney that unconditional pardons had been granted as to them by the Governor of Texas. A jury trial resulted in verdicts finding the appellant guilty of murder in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree. The punishment on the murder charge was fixed by the jury at life imprisonment, and this appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial.
On March 18, 1952, at about 6:00 p. m. appellant entered the 'Economy Market' in San Diego. Mr. Stewart, lessee of the meat concession, noticed the appellant standing in front of a counter holding a package in his hand and apparently looking for something else. He was dressed in dark shoes, dark pants, a gray 'Eisenhower type jacket', and a gray hat. Stewart left the meat counter and as he passed appellant he asked if he could help him. Appellant 'mumbled' something and as Stewart started back up the aisle he heard appellant say something to the effect that this was a 'stickup'. Appellant at this time was standing in front of the check stand and a Mr. Rediker, the owner of the market was behind the check stand by the cash registers. Rediker then said 'There it is, go ahead and take it.' Appellant then reached across the counter to get the money and as he did so Rediker hit him. Appellant and Rediker 'struggled' and a shot then 'went off'. Rediker then stumbled away from the check stand and fell to the floor, and Stewart then saw a gun in appellant's hand. Appellant then ran out of the store and down the street, and Rediker was taken to a hospital where he died the following morning as the result of a bullet which had entered his left side and exited on the right side of his back, shattering his liver and resulting in hemorrhage. A witness who had stopped her car at the curb in front of a bakery next door to the market testified that she saw appellant running up the street with his head back and a gun in his hand; that he was wearing dark shoes, dark trousers, a gray Elsenhower jacket and a gray hat. Appellant was arrested in San Diego on March 26, 1952, and was taken back to Texas where on November 24, 1952, he mailed the following letter to the sheriff of San Diego County:
'Dear Sir:
Sergeant Walk of the San Diego Police Department went to Texas and interviewed appellant at the Jasper County jail. In this interview appellant stated that while he was in San Diego he decided to pull a 'stickup' and entered a market after parking his car a few blocks away; that there were two men in the store, one behind the cash register and the other in the back of the store; that he walked to one of the grocery shelves, picked up one or two objects, and then went to the check stand and 'drew' his gun on the man behind the register, telling him that this was a 'stickup'; that the man backed away from the register and told him to 'Go ahead and take it' and as he reached for the money the man 'swung on him'; that a short struggle followed during which a coffee grinder fell off the counter, and when the grocer was at an angle to him he shot him and he fell to the floor; that he then ran out of the market without getting any money; that he hid the gun in a clump of bushes near the ocean on the highway to Oceanside; and that he returned to San Diego the following day and about ten days thereafter was arrested on a 'car deal' and placed in jail. He described the gun which he used as a .38 special side-breaking revolver, and indicated that he might have been wearing an 'Eisenhower type' jacket. After this conversation Officer Walk obtained the services of a court reporter and appellant's statement was reduced to writing. Appellant read and signed it and indicated that he was telling the police about the incident because he was 'worried over it and just wanted--whatever the outcome was to be--to get it finished.' In his testimony at the trial appellant admitted confessing to the crime involved to Sergeant Walk and stated that his purpose in the confession was to secure a release from the Texas penitentiary.
Appellant first contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to admit evidence showing a prior confession pattern on his part, and evidence of his state of mind in confessing to the crimes here involved. These contentions are not supported by the record. Appellant in his testimony did not deny that he had made the confession but contended that he had confessed to a crime which he did not commit, this in the hope that he would be returned to California for trial rather than be incarcerated in a Texas prison for other crimes committed there. Two of the four prior convictions alleged were stricken at the request of the district attorney. Appellant's counsel objected to the striking of these priors, stating that he wanted to discuss a 'confessional history or pattern' on the part of the appellant. The district attorney then objected to any reference to these prior convictions as being self-serving and hearsay. Appellant testified to the effect that he had been pardoned by the Governor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilkinson
...polygraph test inadmissible at trial under doctrine of stare decisis and also because insufficiently reliable]; People v. York (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 311-312, 344 P.2d 811 [refusing to reexamine holdings of prior cases finding polygraph examination results inadmissible]; People v. Porte......
-
State v. Catanese
...States v. Tremont, 351 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1965); Tyler v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 193 F.2d 24 (1952); People v. York, 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 344 P.2d 811 (1959); People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562, 2 N.W.2d 503 (1942); Hawkins v. State, 222 Miss. 753, 77 So.2d 263 (1955); Commonwealth e......
-
United States v. Ridling
...1958); Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923); Sadowy v. Fay, 189 F.Supp. 150 (S.D.N.Y.1960); People v. York, 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 344 P.2d 811 (1959); People v. Jones, 52 Cal.2d 636, 343 P.2d 577 (1959); People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920 (1963); State v. Boh......
-
People v. Fairchild
...supra, 212 Cal. 1, at p. 6, 297 p. 554; People v. Prado, supra, 190 Cal.App.2d 374, at p. 398, 12 Cal.Rptr. 141; People v. York, 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 310, 344 P.2d 811.) With regard to the latter issue, we note that the time limited for argument is in the trial judge's discretion and his det......