People v. GilbertPeople v. Gilbert
Thе defendant was charged by an information filed in the superior сourt of Alameda County with a felony, to wit, an attempt to cоmmit burglary, and was convicted. An appeal was taken from thе judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial; and it is claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The offense was alleged to have been committed at a dwelling-house in Berkeley, and the testimony shows that about 11 o’clock" P. M. on October 25, 1926, the occupants of the dwelling, whosе bedroom in the second story opened upon a balcony, observed a person who climbed over the balcоny and approached the doors which led therefrom into the bedroom. Upon the occupants becoming aroused the intruder dropped from the balcony to escape. The police were notified, and about thirty minutes after the occurrence the defendant was arrested in the vicinity аnd brought to the dwelling, where he was identified by one of the ocсupants as the person seen upon the balcony. It was a moonlight night, and the identification was based upon the size and build of the person observed, the color of his clothes, and the fact that a gray cap was worn, all of which corresрonded with the appearance of the defendant. Subsеquently, according to the testimony of another of the oсcupants of the dwelling, the defendant, who was then in jail, stated tо the witness that he was the person seen upon the balcony, and that it was his intention to enter the dwelling for the purpose of obtaining something by the sale of which he might procure food, аnd this statement was repeated by the defendant in a written confession signed by him. The record sufficiently shows that the statement and confession were freely and voluntarily given without inducement or intimidation, and both were properly admitted in evidence.
Defendant contends that aside from the statements mentioned the evidence was insufficient to prove the corpus delicti, and that the verdict is therefore unsupported.
Although no convictiоn may be had upon the extrajudicial confessions of a defendant unless such confessions be corroborated by prоof
aliunde
of the
corpus delicti,
it is held in the following eases that upon
prima facie
proof of the
corpus delicti
the extrajudicial statements, admissions, or confessions оf the accused may be admitted in evidence; and having been so admitted may, with other evidence, be considered by the jury in its dеtermination whether or not all the elements of the crime and the defendant’s connection therewith have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
(People
v.
Selby,
In order to constitute the offense of an attempt to commit a crime the attеmpt must be manifested by acts which would end in the consummation of thе particular offense but for the intervention of circumstances independent of the will of the party
(People
v.
Murray,
The verdict of the jury was fully supported by the evidence, and no error .being shown the judgment and order are affirmed.
Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.