Opinion ID: 1124723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sixth Was evidence of other crimes properly admitted against Rosoto?

Text: Yes. Evidence of Rosoto's complicity in 11 offenses other than the South Seas robbery was introduced for the purpose of establishing a plan, scheme, system or design, into which fitted the commission of ... the conspiracy alleged in Count I of the indictment. Rosoto contends that the evidence was improperly received because the other crimes did not resemble the South Seas robbery and were proved by the testimony of his accomplices. [10] In a prosecution for conspiracy evidence of other crimes may be received if it tends to show the existence of a common plan or system of the accused. ( People v. Bompensiero, 142 Cal. App.2d 693, 707 [6] [299 P.2d 725]; People v. Darnell, 97 Cal. App.2d 630, 634 [2] et seq. [218 P.2d 172]; People v. Cossey, 97 Cal. App.2d 101, 112 [4] [217 P.2d 133].) [11] The test of admissibility is whether the offense charged and the other offenses exhibit a common modus operandi; whether they do so is primarily a question for the trial court. ( People v. Baker, 183 Cal. App.2d 615, 622 [7] [7 Cal. Rptr. 22]; People v. Grimes, 113 Cal. App.2d 365, 371 [3] [248 P.2d 130].) [12] Rosoto has incorporated in his brief a chart purporting to show the absence of significant similarities between the South Seas robbery and the other crimes. This chart, however, emphasizes insignificant points of divergence and does not point out the vital similarities. For example, the ninth item on the chart shows that two of the three participants in the South Seas robbery wore silk-stocking masks, whereas masks were not worn during the other offenses. However, in seven of the robberies and burglaries make-up and/or chest padding was used as a disguise. Furthermore, Michael testified that in one of the other robberies stocking masks were used. In each instance there was a conspiracy involving Rosoto and two or more accomplices. In all but one of the other robberies Rosoto provided the guns. In each instance there was either prior surveillance or inside knowledge or both. With only two exceptions, the establishments preyed upon were restaurants or markets. The robbers used their own cars or stolen cars or both. In most of the other cases the driver did not enter the premises. Except for Larson, the inside man, the participants in the South Seas robbery had also participated in committing the other crimes. They constituted a well-organized gang, with Rosoto as their leader. It is true that Rosoto entered the South Seas, but did not enter the other establishments. He explained, however, to Mickey Sevester, It is the first time I have gone in on one of the jobs in about ten years and I really had a ball. [13] It was not necessary for the People to prove Rosoto's complicity in each and every element of the other offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. It was merely incumbent upon the State to offer substantial proof. ( People v. Albertson, 23 Cal.2d 550, 579 [8] [145 P.2d 7]; People v. Lisenba, 14 Cal.2d 403, 429 [7] [94 P.2d 569].) Rosoto claims that the only proof of his guilt consisted of accomplice testimony. [14] Assuming that such testimony would have been insufficient to establish his guilt had he been charged with the other offenses, such evidence nevertheless constituted substantial proof, for had he been so charged it would have required only slight corroboration to sustain a conviction. ( People v. Griffin, 98 Cal. App.2d 1, 26 [9] [219 P.2d 519].)