Goodwin

People v. Goodwin

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 676·94 Cal. App. 164·270 P. 747
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 1928Docket No. 1657.California1,298 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a second trial wherein. the defendant, Philip A. Goodwin, was again convicted of murder in the first degree and was in said second trial sentenced to life imprisonment. On the first trial he was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death, in which first case the judgment and order denying a new trial were appealed from and the order denying a motion for a new trial was reversed and a new trial was granted, which were both appealed from in this matter now before this court.

It is useless to discuss the circumstantial evidence, as it was unquestionably sufficiently strong for the jury to have believed the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.

As to the claim of appellant that there was a lack of proof of venue, it is true it was not absolutely proven, but there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find, as it must have found (to have found the defendant guilty under the instructions), that the murder was committed in Orange County.

We can see nothing in the charge of misconduct on the part of the court and as to the charge of misconduct on the part of the district attorney—there is less to criticise in the remarks…

Concurring Opinion

Conrey, J.

I concur in the judgment. The contention of appellant that the venue of the crime was not proved to be within the county of Orange, seems to be entirely without merit. Not only was the body of the deceased found at a place well within the county limits, but the condition of the body, together with the surrounding circumstances, were strongly convincing of the fact that the murder had taken place on the same premises and within a few feet from the spot where the body was found. (People v. Watts, 198 Cal. 776, 789 [ 247 Pac. 884 ].)

Almost equally without merit is the contention that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the verdict or to prove that appellant participated in the commission of the crime. The disappearance of Patterson and the probable date of his death was March 15, 1926. Four days before that time, in the city of Los Angeles, appellant opened a bank account by using a forged check of Patterson, drawn to an assumed name used by appellant in that transaction. Next we find that on March 13th appellant and Gaines (who was separately tried and convicted of this murder) went to San Diego in an automobile hired by appellant, and, according to some testimony, a third…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.