People v. Ashley
| Decision Date | 19 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5421 |
| Citation | 267 P.2d 271,42 Cal.2d 246 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ASHLEY. |
George H. Ashley, in pro. per., and Benjamin D. Brown, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of four counts of grand theft under section 484 of the Penal Code. He 'appeals from the verdicts and judgments as to each count,' and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The first two counts charged that defendant feloniously took $13,590 from Mrs. Maude Neal on June 19, 1948, and $4,470 from her on August 3, 1948. The remaining two counts charged that he feloniously took $3,000 from Mrs. Mattie Russ on November 19, 1948 and $4,200 from her on December 4, 1948.
Defendant was the 'business manager' of 'Life's Estate, Ltd.,' a corporation chartered for the purpose of 'introducing people.' Although defendant did run, and had full authority to run the affairs of the corporation, its capital stock was owned by Mrs. Edith Wingrave, defendant's sister-in-law, and Mr. and Mrs. Leo Butts, defendant's son-in-law and daughter. Mrs. Wingrave and the Buttses were also the officers and directors of the corporation.
In the latter part of 1948 Mrs. Russ, then about seventy years of age, visited the offices of Life's Estate at 1537 North La Brea Avenue in Hollywood. She was introduced to defendant, who persuaded her to join the 'Life's Estate Philosophical Society.' On November 18, 1948, in response to a telegraphic invitation, she returned to the La Brea offices and was offered a position as matron and hostess at a salary of $100 a month with a rent-free apartment on the property. She accepted the offer. As defendant was driving Mrs. Russ to her home in Long Beach, he went by a lot on Sunset Boulevard on which stood two sheet-metal buildings. Defendant told her that 'he owned that property and they also owned the La Brea property at 1537.' As they drove on, defendant asked Mrs. Russ if she had any ready cash. When she told him that she had $3,000 he explained that he was building a theater on the Sunset property and needed money to proceed with the construction. He offered her interest at the rate of six percent and security in the form of a first mortgage or trust deed on the La Brea property. Mrs. Russ agreed to make the loan and to go with defendant to her bank the following morning. When they arrived at the bank, defendant refused to go in with Mrs. Russ. She entered alone and secured $3,000 in currency from a safe deposit box. Defendant then took her in his automobile to a bank in Westchester, a suburb of Los Angeles. On arrival at this bank she turned the money over to defendant in reliance on his representations that she would get a first mortgage on the La Brea property and that the money would be used in the construction of a theater on the Sunset Bouldevard lot, which she believed he owned. Defendant gave her a receipt for the money, which stated that she was to receive a first trust deed on the La Brea property. The money was deposited to the account of Life's Estate at the Westchester Branch of the Security-First National Bank. The corporation's books show that on that day the cash account was subject to an overdraft of $4,151.93.
After this transaction was completed, defendant took Mrs. Russ to the offices of Life's Estate and later to dinner. At dinner he told her that he needed more money to complete the theater building and asked her to make an additional loan. She said that she had a note, secured by a trust deed and a chattel mortgage, worth $4,200 that she had acquired from the sale of the home in which she had previously lived. She agreed to transfer these documents to defendant. This loan and the previous one of $3,000 were to be consolidated, and he agreed to give her a first mortgage for the full amount against the La Brea property. On November 20, 1948 defendant drove Mrs. Russ once again to her bank, which held the documents and acted as her agent for the collection of installments. Again defendant insisted that she enter the bank alone. After securing the documents, Mrs. Russ suggested that they return to the bank and have the bank's employee prepare the transfer, but defendant insisted that the necessary papers could be prepared in his office. The transfer was made that day. It was stipulated that the note security by the trust deed and chattel mortgage was sold by defendant and the proceeds of the sale deposited to the account of Life's Estate. They were used for the operating expenses of the corporation.
On November 25, 1948 Mrs. Russ moved into an apartment at the La Brea property and undertook the duties of matron and hostess. She testified that her many requests for the promised first mortgage were unavailing and that she returned to defendant her receipt for the $3,000, when he told her that she would receive the mortgage if she did so. After frequent quarrels over the failure to deliver the mortgage and over the tasks assigned her, Mrs. Russ left the employ of Life's Estate on March 31, 1949. At this time she received a note of the corporation secured by a second trust deed on unimproved property in Nichols Canyon owned by the corporation. Mrs. Russ testified that, although this security was worthless to her, she took it because defendant had told her to 'take that or nothing.'
It was proved that the Sunset property was owned by the corporation and that no theater was ever built thereon. The La Brea property was owned by Dr. Louis Phillips, who had leased the property to Mrs. Wingrave for a period of five years. He had not authorized any one to pace an encumbrance on this property.
Mrs. Russ testified that she did not receive a note prior to the one accompanying the second deed of trust on the Nichols Canyon property. When shown a letter, signed by her, acknowledging receipt of the note and second deed of trust and agreeing to cancel and return a prior note, she refused to admit that the signature was hers, because of the reference to the prior note. It was stipulated that the signature was genuine.
Thereafter, Mrs. Russ made a number of smaller loans to defendant. She testified that the loans were made in response to appeals that they were necessary to maintain public utility service and the like. All of the loans were repaid. In payment of the loans of $3,000 and $4,2000 Mrs Russ received four postdated checks drawn by Life's Estate. After it had become clear that these checks would not be paid, defendant drove Mrs. Russ to a high point in Nichols Canyon and asked for an extension of time. Mrs. Russ was frightened by their proximity to the edge of a steep embankment. Earl Farnsworth, an employee of Life's Estate, met them on the road as defendant had instructed him to do. He testified that he delivered an envelope to defendant, who opened it and gave Mrs. Russ the contents, a promissory note payable six months from date. She finally agreed to an extension but said that she wanted the time shortened. After pleading that he couldn't raise the money in any shorter length of time, defendant finally agreed to change the term of the note from six to four months. He made the change, gave the note to Mrs. Russ and told Farnsworth to return and pick up his remains. Mrs. Russ testified that she consented to the extension because she was frightened by defendant's driving so near to the edge of a sheer slope and by his threats to take his own life so that she might be paid from the proceeds of his life insurance policies.
In support of the two counts charging defendant with grand theft from Mrs. Maude Neal the People introduced the testimony of Mrs. Neal at the preliminary hearing, since she had returned to her North Carolina home and was not available at the time of the trial.
Mrs. Neal became interested in Life's Estate through a newspaper advertisement and Leo Butts called to sell her a membership. She later went to the La Brea office, where Mrs. Wingrave introduced her to defendant. After some preliminary conversation he asked her if she owned any property. She replied that she owned $17,500 worth of war bonds. He learned that the bonds were kept in a lock-box in Mrs. Neal's home in North Carolina. Defendant then introduced Mrs. Neal to Dr. Ulyses Meyer, a psychologist associated with Life's Estate. After some further talk, Mrs. Neal signed a note for $40 and became a member.
Between March and June of 1948, defendant and Mrs. Neal had a number of conversations regarding her money. She was offered a position as matron and hostess with an apartment rent-free if she would let him have all her money. He stated that he wanted her money to take up an option that he had to buy the El Patio Theater for $165,000, which he said was worth $500,000. Defendant said that he would give Mrs. Neal a note of Life's Estate and a trust deed on the theater building. She was unable to decide whether to make the loan, but offered to have her bonds mailed to her. Defendant insisted that this method was too slow and prevailed upon her to telephone her daughter to send the bonds by airmail. After receiving the bonds, Mrs. Neal went to the office of Life's Estate and talked to defendant. When she reintroduced the subject of security, he flew into a rage, saying that she talked as though she did not trust him. She called on Dr. Meyer, told him of the conversation, and then left with her bonds. At 10 o'clock that night, Leo Butts called for her and she went with him to the offices at La Brea, where she met defendant. He said that Dr. Meyer had told him that she was afraid to let them have her money, and that he was sorry if he had given her the impression that they were not honest. He again told her that she would have good security for her loan because the corporation was worth a half-million dollars and had $125,000 worth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
....... Other Theories of Theft . Language in many cases indicates a theft conviction will be sustained when challenged for insufficiency of the evidence so long as any one of the several types of theft is shown. 14 (E.g., People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, 258, 267 P.2d 271, cert. den. 348 U.S. 900, 75 S.Ct. 222, 99 L.Ed. 707; People v. Corenevsky, 124 Cal.App.2d 19, 24, 267 P.2d 1048; People v. Kagan, 264 Cal.App.2d 648, 658, 70 Cal.Rptr. 732, cert. den. 394 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1027, 22 L.Ed.2d 224.) Presumably this rule is ......
-
People v. Brady
...representation with intent to defraud the owner of his property, and to prove that the owner was, in fact, defrauded. (People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, 259, 267 P.2d 271.) To establish the commission of the crime of grand theft sounding in false pretenses, the following factors must be prov......
-
People v. Conterno
...'supply a lacuna in the prosecution's proof.' People v. Peters, 1957, 149 Cal.App.2d 94, 99, 308 P.2d 42, 45. In People v. Ashley, 1954, 42 Cal.2d 246, 268-269, 367 P.2d 271, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 900, 75 S.Ct. 222, 99 L.Ed. 707, the failure of defendant to testify was properly urged a......
-
People v. Modesto
...... (People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478, 489-490, 165 P.2d 3; Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 55-56, 67 S.Ct. 1672.) The comment serves merely to advise the jury how to treat the evidence the prosecution has introduced. (People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, 268-269, 267 P.2d 271, cert. den. 348 U.S. 900, 75 S.Ct. 222, 99 L.Ed. 707.) '(I)f it appears from the evidence that defendant could reasonably be expected to explain or deny evidence presented against him, the jury may consider his failure to do so as tending to indicate the truth ......
-
Appendix II Evidence Code
...may be drawn only from the evidence in the case and the defendant's failure to explain or deny such evidence. People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, 267 P.2d 271 (1954); People v. Adam-son, supra, 27 Cal.2d 478, 165 P.2d 3 (1946). Section 413 of the Evidence Code expresses the principle underlyin......
-
United States v. O'hagan: Defining the Limits of Fraud and Deceptive Pretext Under Rule 10b-5
...to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship. 99. Model Penal Code § 223.3 cmt. 1 (1962). 100. See People v. Ashley, 267 P.2d 271, 279 (Cal. 1954) ("Larceny by trick and device is the appropriation of property, the possession of which was fraudulently acquired; obtaining pr......