Opinion ID: 1246974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: prior crimes sufficiency of evidence

Text: (19a) At the penalty trial, the prosecution attempted to prove that Milton or Floyd or both of them had committed other crimes. Milton challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove two of the crimes, a bus robbery with Floyd in March 1966 and another bus robbery in October 1966. (20) Evidence of such crimes, even though defendants were not charged or convicted of the crimes, is admissible at the penalty trial, but they must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury may consider them. [9] ( People v. Varnum, 70 Cal.2d 480, 485 [75 Cal. Rptr. 161, 450 P.2d 553]; People v. Durham, 70 Cal.2d 171, 187, fn. 15 [74 Cal. Rptr. 262, 449 P.2d 198].) However, on appeal our sole function is to determine whether or not substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could reasonably have found that defendant had committed the uncharged offenses. ( People v. Durham, supra, at p. 189, fn. 16.) (19b) March 1966 Bus Robbery  Mr. Raziano, a bus driver, provided the only evidence concerning the bus robbery in March 1966. He tentatively identified both Floyd and Milton in court, stating, I think the robbers were Floyd and Milton. Raziano testified that in January 1967 he had picked out Floyd and Milton from about 10 or 12 photographs which the police showed him, and that he had picked Floyd and Milton from a lineup of 10 or 12 men. He conceded, however, on cross-examination that the lineup occurred 10 or 11 months after the robbery; that the whole incident on the bus took about a minute or two; that when the robbery occurred I was worrying about myself; that at the lineup he told the police he was not sure of his identification; that after being shown photographs, he told the police he was not sure of his identification, and that, as to his courtroom identification of Floyd and Milton, I am not certain, no, that Floyd or Milton or either of them robbed him. A special agent for the Rapid Transit District testified that Raziano had never identified Floyd or Milton from mug shots. Although on redirect examination, he stated, Yes, I am sure of one.... Mr. Floyd, he did not commit himself as to Milton. Cross-examination by Milton's attorney made clear his uncertainty as to Milton. Q But any Negro that would be sitting, about Milton's complexion and about the same height, as long as he is sitting near Floyd, you would say he is the man? A I imagine so. The lack of positive identification of Milton merely went to the weight of the foregoing testimony and not to its admissibility ( People v. Gonzales, 68 Cal.2d 467, 472 [67 Cal. Rptr. 551, 439 P.2d 655]). In view of certain similarities between the March 1966 robbery and the robbery of which Milton was convicted at the guilt trial, we are not prepared to hold that Raziano's testimony could have furnished no substantial evidence whatsoever from which the jury could have determined that Milton also committed the prior offense. [10] Moreover, the record discloses that Milton's counsel failed to object to the admission of this evidence at trial, failed to move to strike Raziano's testimony, and failed to request an instruction admonishing the jury to disregard that testimony. [11] Since Milton interposed no objection at trial to the introduction of the evidence of this prior offense, he cannot now raise the objection for the first time on appeal ( People v. Varnum, supra, 70 Cal.2d 480, 486; People v. Teale, 70 Cal.2d 497, 519-520 [75 Cal. Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564]). October 1966 Bus Robbery  The contention that the evidence is insufficient to prove that Milton robbed one Ross, a driver for the Los Angeles Rapid Transit District, in October 1966, is without merit. Ross testified that Milton looked like the man who held him up; that he believe[d] Milton was the man who held him up; that he was saying he looks like the man.