Title: State v. Dutton

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

83 Ariz. 193 (1957) 318 P.2d 667 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse James DUTTON, Appellant. No. 1102. Supreme Court of Arizona. November 26, 1957. *194 Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for appellant. Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., Raul H. Castro, County Atty., and Jack I. Podret, Deputy County Atty. of Pima County, Tucson, for appellee. UDALL, Chief Justice. Jesse James Dutton, defendant-appellant, was informed against, tried and convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery, a felony (A.R.S. § 13-641). The court rendered judgment of conviction against defendant and imposed an indeterminate sentence of not less than 10 nor more than 18 years in the state penitentiary. This appeal followed. At the trial defendant was represented *195 by an attorney other than the one who, by court appointment, now represents him on this appeal. At the close of the case defense counsel moved for an instructed verdict upon the general grounds that the State had failed to prove the necessary elements of the crime of robbery. A denial of this motion is the basic error assigned on this appeal. Specifically the defendant contends that the evidence did not sufficiently identify him as the perpetrator of the crime so as to warrant the court submitting the question of his guilt to a jury. At the trial defendant elected, as was his right, not to take the witness stand and other than a few additional questions directed to the man allegedly robbed no other witnesses were called to testify in his behalf, hence there is no particular conflict in the evidence. The evidence tending to identify defendant as the robber is as follows: Richard Gorby, a teacher in the Tucson public school system, who had part-time employment at the Desert Beverages store in Tucson, testified that at about 10:45 p.m. on July 31, 1956, two men, one described as being tall and the other short, entered the store where he was the sole attendant. The tall man asked for a bottle of packaged liquor on display and, as the witness came from behind the counter, the tall man pulled a gun and commanded that he lie on the floor; immediately thereafter he was told to get up and open the cash register which he did then he resumed a position on the floor where the short man tied him up. The intruders then rifled the cash register and fled. The following excerpts from Gorby's testimony will disclose the manner and extent of his identification of defendant, viz.: And upon cross-examination he further stated: Upon being further interrogated as to the "police lineup", Gorby stated: Ronald Heiss, a 16-year-old boy, whose father owns a tavern across the street from the Desert Beverages store, testified he was at his father's place of business some time between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. the evening of the robbery; that he stepped outside and in the semi-darkness observed a Buick car parked parallel to the side of the bar. This boy further testified he noted the number appearing on the license plates of the Buick car and that he wrote it down on a slip of paper which was later given to the officers. We quote: Then on cross-examination these questions were asked and answers given, viz.: Deputy Sheriff Steward testified that in response to a telephone call reporting a gun left as security for a tire-repair job, he investigated and located defendant and a shorter man at a junk yard near Tucson. This was some time in the month of August, 1956. The officer stated that defendant was in possession of a Buick sedan car, which bore license No. C-54515. The original license plates and several photographs of the car were admitted in evidence. Defendant claimed ownership, though he had no papers to prove same. The officer further testified: There is somewhat of a dearth of authority in this jurisdiction on the law governing identification; however, by independent search we find that in the case of La Grange v. State, 26 Ariz. 102, 222 P. 414, 415 (there the question involved was identification of a dead body), this court quoted with approval the following: Turning to reported cases from other jurisdictions it appears to be well settled that identification of a defendant, necessary to support a conviction, need only comply with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Uncertainty of identifying evidence goes to its weight, rather than its admissibility. In accord: People v. Cahan, 141 Cal. App. 2d 891, 297 P.2d 715. Turning to the text writers on the subject of identification, we quote from *199 Nichols, Applied Evidence, Vol. 3, section 28 (p. 2503), (1928): See also the following: Conrad, Modern Trial Evidence, Vol. 1, section 639 (1956); Elliott, Evidence, Vol. 4, section 2715 (1905); Underhill's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, section 127 (5th Ed. 1928); Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, sections 181 and 182 (12th Ed. 1955); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 920, p. 192. People v. Fiorita, 339 Ill. 78, 170 N.E. 690, upon which defendant so strongly relies, is readily distinguishable and, in our opinion, is not contra to the authorities cited above. Applying the legal principles above set forth to the facts heretofore recited, we have no hesitancy in holding that there was sufficient competent evidence presented to the jury from which they might find, as they did, that one of the persons committing the robbery was none other than defendant. The learned trial court, therefore, did not err in refusing to take the case from the jury. Furthermore, before the case was finally submitted the jury were instructed as to the legal requirements for identification. Finally, defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in admitting, over objection, the testimony of Louie Silverman to the effect that the Buick car found in possession of defendant at the time of his arrest was then, and at all times pertinent hereto, owned by him and had been taken from his used car lot without permission. Clearly the inference was left with the jury that defendant had probably stolen the car in question. This, defendant maintains, tended to prejudice the minds of the jury, by innuendo. The State seeks to justify the court's ruling in admitting such evidence upon one or more of the following theories, viz.: (a) as tending to identify the accused; (b) a circumstance tending to show the guilt of defendant on the robbery charge since it is well known stolen cars are often used as "get away" cars; (c) admissibility under "the common scheme or plan" exception to the rule that evidence as to other offenses is not admissible; *200 (d) rebuttal of defendant's claim of ownership of the Buick car. Each of the State's theories, except (d) which is clearly an effort to impeach on a collateral matter, touch but are not embraced by the exceptions to the oft-stated rule as to inadmissibility of evidence showing the defendant had or may have committed other crimes. We hold the court improperly admitted Mr. Silverman's testimony as it had no probative value in establishing the guilt of defendant in the instant case. Does it necessarily follow that the judgment must then be reversed and a new trial granted? We think not. In applying this constitutional provision our prior decisions, particularly in Turley v. State, 48 Ariz. 61, 59 P.2d 312 and State v. Singleton, 66 Ariz. 49, at page 66, 182 P.2d 920, at page 930, have laid down this test: had the error pointed out not been committed is there reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different? In answering this question, the members of this court must necessarily put themselves, as nearly as possible, in the position of the jury in order to determine whether, as reasonable men, the error committed probably affected their verdict. Considered in this light particularly since the same inuendo of theft was raised by the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Steward we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that a fair-minded jury would have arrived at a different verdict from what it did had such evidence been excluded. Judgment affirmed. WINDES, PHELPS, STRUCKMEYER and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.