Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/28/740.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 03:52:44
Document Index: 35595178

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 247', '§ 4', '§ 1322', '§ 196', '§ 2232', '§ 577', '§ 658']

People v. Leary :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 2d › Volume 28 › People v. Leary
Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, and Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. [28 Cal. 2d 741]
The points urged in the original opening brief touch upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. An examination of the record reveals a course of criminal activities on the part of Leary, Crain and Hardeson. The facts concerning the murder and attempted robbery charged in counts one and two as well as those concerning the robberies charged in counts three to five are clearly established. [28 Cal. 2d 742]
About 8:15 of the same evening a man with a gun came up to Ellen Landers, the cashier in a theater ticket office, and [28 Cal. 2d 743] demanded all the bills she had, whereupon she gave him $19. She identified Crain as this man. She did not see Leary.
Shortly before midnight of December 16th a conversation was had in which three of the officers, Crain and Leary participated. One of the officers testified that the following occurred in the course of this conversation: "I [the officer, who knew that on the previous day Mrs. Leary had been taken into custody and had made a full statement to the police], said, 'There is only one thing I would like to know, did Mrs. Leary know, when you men went to the Ocello liquor store, you were going there to commit a holdup?' Crain said, 'No.' Leary shook his head in the negative. I said, 'When did she [28 Cal. 2d 744] first know that you were going there to pull a robbery?' Crain says, 'When we came running out and I told her I shot the old guy.' I looked at Leary and I said, 'Is that right, Dan?' He nodded his head in the affirmative."
On December 19th Leary was again questioned by police officers and, according to the testimony of one of them, was asked, "Just what happened out at the liquor store? Was there a fight or did the old man take a swing at Crain, or what happened that he shot him?", and Leary replied, "I don't know just what happened. I saw him scuffling and saw him fall down and I turned and ran out." Leary was also questioned concerning the robberies of December 9th. With respect to the Rack robbery he said that "he had just stepped inside the door and Crain had gone back to the counter where the man was," and that they had taken some suits. He also said they [28 Cal. 2d 745] had "pulled" the hold-up of the theater cashier the same night, that he was driving his own car, and that they also "pulled" the Mathews job.
[1] In the opening brief prepared by the defendant he argues, under headings one and two, that the corpus delicti as to the murder was not proved as to him, and that the evidence failed to establish the corpus delicti connecting him with any of the other offenses charged in the information. He concedes that the evidence establishes that Mr. Ocello was murdered and that several robberies were committed, but he overlooks the fact that proof of the corpus delicti does not require proof that the crime was committed by the defendant, or that the identity of the perpetrators of the crime be proved. (People v. Selby, 198 Cal. 426 [245 P. 426]; People v. Bollinger, 196 Cal. 191, 200 [237 P. 25]; People v. Vertrees, 169 Cal. 404, 408-9 [146 P. 890]; People v. Ward, 134 Cal. 301, 306 [66 P. 372]; People v. Fierro, 58 Cal. App. 2d 215, 220 [136 P.2d 94]; People v. Shapiro, 40 Cal. App. 2d 321, 323 [104 P.2d 688]; People v. Wilt, 40 Cal. App. 2d 124, 127 [104 P.2d 387]; People v. Carter, 10 Cal. App. 2d 387, 388 [52 P.2d 294]; People v. Meyers, 7 Cal. App. 2d 351 [46 P.2d 282]; People v. Cowling, 6 Cal. App. 2d 466, 471 [44 P. 441]; People v. Durborow, 130 Cal. App. 615, 618 [20 P.2d 708]; People v. Sameniego, 118 Cal. App. 165, 169 [4 P.2d 809, 5 P.2d 653]; People v. Strider, 96 Cal. App. 632, 635 [274 P. 601]; People v. Coker, 78 Cal. App. 151, 160 [248 P. 542]; People v. Rodway, 77 Cal. App. 738, 740 [247 P. 532]; 8 Cal.Jur. § 247, p. 166.) Defendant's real contention seems to be that of the insufficiency of the evidence [28 Cal. 2d 746] of his identification with respect to the several crimes charged against him.
[4] It is argued both in defendant's opening brief, and by counsel in his reply brief, that the trial court committed prejudicial error by permitting the introduction in evidence of the two statements of Mrs. Leary. When told by the police of the first, or written statement, Leary replied, as above set forth, "I am going to take it the hard way," and he later nodded his head in the affirmative, in corroboration of Crain's statement that Mrs. Leary first knew they were going to rob the liquor store after they came out and Crain told her "he shot the old guy." Later, when confronted with Mrs. Leary herself, Leary first replied, "All I can say is I don't like it very much," and then stood mute before the further query, "Do you deny it?" The subject of the admissibility in evidence of an accusatory statement to which a defendant under arrest has made an equivocal reply is reviewed in People v. Simmons, this day decided (ante, p. 699 [172 P.2d 18]). Assuming that under application of the rule there declared in the similar situation here shown, it may have been error to admit the accusatory statements, it is [28 Cal. 2d 747] clear that the defendant suffered no prejudice in view of his admissions and the other detailed evidence in proof of the crimes, overwhelmingly establishing guilt. No error justifying a reversal of the judgment is shown (Const., art. VI, § 4 1/2).
The fact that the accusations were made by the wife of the accused who was incompetent to testify against him without his consent (Pen. Code, § 1322), did not render the statements inadmissible (People v. McCrea, 32 Cal. 98, 100; People v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137, 143; People v. Ah Yute, 53 Cal. 613; 8 Cal.Jur. § 196, p. 103; State v. Portee, 200 N.C. 142 [156 S.E. 783, 80 A.L.R. 1229]; Richards v. State, 82 Wis. 172 [51 N.W. 652]; State v. Laudise, 86 N.J.L. 230 [90 A. 1098]; Joiner v. State, 119 Ga. 315 [46 S.E. 412]; Nunn v. [28 Cal. 2d 748] State, 143 Ga. 451 [85 S.E. 346]; State v. McNamara, 116 N.J.L. 497 [184 A. 797, 185 A. 479]; Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562 [110 So. 563]; Allen v. State, 20 Ala.App. 467 [103 So. 712]; State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620 [115 S.W. 417]; Rex v. Bartlett, 7 Car. and Pay. 832; Rex v. Smithers, 5 Car. and Pay. 332; 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 2232, p. 237; 22 C.J.S. p. 1259; 20 Am.Jur. § 577, p. 487; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) § 658, pp. 1094 et seq.; 80 A.L.R. p. 1246), nor did the fact that Mrs. Leary was under arrest on suspicion of being an accomplice in the commission of the crimes make them inadmissible (People v. Shelest, 62 Cal. App. 213, 217 [216 P. 389]).