Opinion ID: 1124723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fifth Was Mickey Sevester an accomplice?

Text: [9] Rosoto requested the court to instruct the jury that Mickey Sevester was an accomplice of his as to counts I, II, IV and V. This request was denied. The ruling was correct. Mickey Sevester was not one who was liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which her testimony was given. (Pen. Code, § 1111.) She once handed Rosoto an envelope, upon which he drew a diagram of the South Seas. Upon an unspecified occasion she drove with Jenkyn (her husband) and Rosoto to the restaurant, and the latter pointed out the parking lot and the rest room window; and she picked up Jenkyn at Suboter's house after the robbery. These activities, relied upon by Rosoto, did not establish her complicity as a matter of law. ( People v. Santo, supra, 43 Cal.2d 319, 326 [1]; People v. Means, 179 Cal. App.2d 72, 85 [16], [17] [3 Cal. Rptr. 591].) Since it could be inferred that she was not an accomplice to the robbery, and the question whether she was an accomplice was left to the jury under proper instructions, it must be presumed in support of the judgment that the jury found she was not an accomplice. (Cf. People v. Santo, supra . )