People v. Akard
| Citation | 30 Cal.Rptr. 69,215 Cal.App.2d 182 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8341 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eldon Buel AKARD, Defendant and Respondent. |
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty. (Los Angeles County), and Harry Wood and Robert J. Lord, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and appellant.
Joseph T. Forno, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.
After a preliminary hearing an information was filed containing three counts charging defendant with violation of Penal Code, section 337a, subdivisions 1 (bookmaking), 3 (receiving money wagered on a horse race), and 4 (recording a wager). Defendant moved under Penal Code, section 995, to set aside the information upon the ground that he had been committed without probable cause. The motion was granted and the People have appealed from the order.
The sole witness at the preliminary hearing was a police officer. Counsel stipulated he was an expert in the manner in which bookmaking is conducted in Los Angeles County, and in the signs, symbols and paraphernalia commonly used. About 11:20 a. m. on January 18, 1962, the officer observed defendant meet a man in the doorway of an unoccupied hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Defendant handed this man some money. Defendant then entered a cafe, where he was approached by another man. This man had a conversation with defendant during which defendant removed from his pocket a scratch sheet (National Daily Reporter) which they both consulted. A moment later the man took currency from his pocket. As defendant started to leave, a cook behind the steam table called to him. Defendant went to the cook and handed him the scratch sheet and they had a conversation. The cook then handed the scratch sheet back to defendant and handed him money, which defendant pocketed.
The officer then followed defendant as he proceeded to a nearby bar. Here again defendant had a conversation with an unknown man. Defendant then went to the rear of the bar and placed his scratch sheet and a pad of paper on top of some beer cases. He consulted the scratch sheet and made notations on the pad.
The officer then placed defendant under arrest and examined the pad. The pages of the pad were, in the officer's opinion, betting markers of a type commonly used by bookmakers in this county. These markers contained notations which the officer interpreted to be records of wagers on certain horse races which were referred to in the scratch sheet.
A search disclosed that defendant was carrying $105 in $1.00 and $5.00 bills.
Defendant's counsel argued, both in the superior court and here, that there was no probable cause for the arrest and that the evidence at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to justify the magistrate in holding defendant to answer. No authority has been cited in support of defendant's contentions in either court.
'Probable cause for an arrest is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.' (People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967, 970.)
Penal Code, section 872, provides that the magistrate must hold the defendant to answer if 'it appears from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roth
... ... (Perry v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 276, 19 Cal.Rptr. 1, 368 P.2d 529; People v. Swansboro, 200 Cal.App.2d 831, 835, 19 Cal.Rptr. 527; People v. Akard, 215 Cal.App.2d 182, 185, 30 Cal.Rptr. 69; Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 271, 294 P.2d 23.) If there is some competent evidence to support the information, the court will not inquire into its sufficiency. The information will be set aside on the basis of sufficient cause only where ... ...
-
People v. Reynolds
...as to the weight of the evidence presented, nor may it judge the credibility of the witnesses who testified. (People v. Akard, 215 Cal.App.2d 182, 185, 30 Cal.Rptr. 69.) If there is some evidence to support the information, the superior court is not permitted to inquire into its sufficiency......
- People v. Amiotte
-
Kohn v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco
...the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing nor does it resolve conflicting factual contentions (People v. Akard, 215 Cal.App.2d 182, 185, 30 Cal.Rptr. 69; People v. Melchor, 237 A.C.A. 811, 816, 47 Cal.Rptr. 235). The function is similar to that of an appellate court revi......