gno.law

People v. Valardi

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 2121 · 1966-02-08 · Published · 240 Cal. App. 2d 98 · 49 Cal. Rptr. 339 · 1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1320

THE PEOPLE, and v. DAVE VALARDI, and

Area
criminal
Panel
Janice R. Brown, Gerald

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Browngerald

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

A truck was stolen. Disregarding an accomplice’s testimony (People v. Luker, 63 Cal.2d 464, 469 [47 Cal.Rptr. 209, 407 P.2d 9]), the sole evidence implicating defendant is a hearsay statement admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule involving a conspiracy charge against defendant: The accomplice’s wife testified her husband told her that he, defendant and two others stole the truck. Is this sufficient evidence tending to connect defendant with the crime? (People v. Luker, supra, 63 Cal.2d 464, 469.) No. An accomplice’s testimony is no better coming from another’s mouth than coming from his own. If it were, the accomplice could broadcast his testimony to the world before trial and then call anyone who heard it to corroborate it in court.

*99The evidence of defendant’s presence at the ranch where the stolen truck was taken was merely a suspicious circumstance, offset in part at least, by his employment there. A mere grave suspicion cast upon the defendant does not suffice. (People v. Luker, supra, 63 Cal.2d 464, 469.)

Judgment reversed.

Coughlin, J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by