PEOPLE v. GABLE (1970)

OPINION

After a court trial defendant Benjamin Gable was convicted of battery on a police officer (Pen.Code, § 243). He appeals, contending the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction in several respects.

At midnight, on November 3, 1969, a man named Graham heard screaming and yelling outside his home. He dressed, went outside to investigate and observed the defendant lying in the street “banging” his arms up and down and “hollering.” As he stood watching, the defendant got to his feet, came into Graham's yard and began attacking him with his fists, shouting he was going to kill him. Graham wrestled defendant to the ground, held him briefly and then released him.

At this time a police vehicle drove down the street toward Graham's house. The vehicle was white in color, equipped with a red light, driven by a uniformed police officer wearing a cap and badge and had police insignia displayed on both front doors. The weather was clear and the area was well lighted. As the police vehicle approached, the defendant stepped abruptly in front of it, causing the officer to stop to avoid hitting him. As soon as it stopped, the defendant kicked the left front of the vehicle. As the officer stepped from the car, the defendant struck him on the jaw with his fist. The blow was of sufficient force to break the officer's jaw. The defendant ran. The officer gave chase and, with the aid of two fellow officers who arrived on the scene, managed to subdue and handcuff the defendant. During the struggle the defendant cursed the officers and demanded they remove the handcuffs.

Defendant was transported to the police station where he continued to yell and shout obscenities, and make remarks such as: “This is it. I got to get out of this world. The walls are closing in on us.” Defendant's father visited him at the police station and testified, in his opinion, his son was “just completely out of his mind.” However, he could offer no explanation for his son's behavior. Neither the prosecution nor the defense offered any evidence which would support the conclusion defendant was intoxicated, under the influence of any drug or narcotic, or suffering from mental disability or incapacity.

Defendant first contends the evidence is insufficient to show knowledge on his part that the man he attacked was a police officer. Penal Code, section 243 provides a battery against the person of a peace officer is punishable as a felony when the person committing the offense “knows or reasonably should know” that such victim is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. The conclusion defendant knew or should have known his victim was a police officer is supported by evidence showing the officer was in full uniform, driving a marked police vehicle, and was attacked without provocation in an area that was well lighted. Defendant's attempted flight after his attack on the officer reinforces this conclusion.

Defendant further contends the evidence “supports the thesis” he was in such a state of mental stress or intoxication that he could not have known his victim was a police officer. Assuming, without deciding, the defense of diminished capacity is available to defendant, the burden of proof to establish that defense rested upon him. (People v. Glover, 257 Cal.App.2d 502, 505-507, 65 Cal.Rptr. 219.) The defense wholly failed to produce any evidence the defendant's behavior was influenced by mental stress or intoxication, or that he experienced diminished capacity from any cause whatsoever. While the prosecution's evidence showed the defendant to have acted in a strange and peculiar manner, it does not follow his behavior must be attributed to mental stress, intoxication or diminished capacity.

It is the function of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses and to draw reasonable inferences from the facts shown by the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings of the trier of fact, as they do here, its finding is conclusive on appeal, even though the circumstances might also be reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692, 702, 44 Cal.Rptr. 30, 401 P.2d 382.) In spite of the defendant's strange and unexplained conduct, the trial court's conclusion he had sufficient capacity to know his victim was an on-duty police officer is a reasonable one.

There was no evidence showing the defendant to have been in a state of unconsciousness at the time of the offense. Defendant's suggestion the absence of evidence explaining his “aberrational behavior” establishes unconsciousness is without merit.

The defendant did not enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial judge inquired concerning this of defendant's attorney. His answer clearly indicates the decision not to enter such a plea was deliberate and not an oversight. In the absence of such a plea, defendant is conclusively presumed to be sane at the time of the offense. (Pen.Code, § 1016.)

The judgment is affirmed.

BY THE COURT.