People v. Beem
| Decision Date | 17 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3754 |
| Citation | 192 Cal.App.2d 207,13 Cal.Rptr. 238 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Doren BEEM, Defendant and Appellant. |
Donald Roy, San Francisco, for appellant (Under appointment of the District Court of Appeal).
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith and Joseph I. Kelly, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant, Doren Beem, and Ronald Mishler were charged jointly by indictment with burglary in violation of section 459 of the Penal Code. A jury found them both guilty of burglary in the second degree. On this appeal taken only by Beem from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, the sole contention is that the evidence does not sustain the judgment.
The record reveals the following facts: On July 5, 1959, Mr. Vuko, the co-partner of the Golden Cask bar at 1725 Haight Street in San Francisco, arrived at his place of business about 11:00 p. m., and relieved the bartender. He served beer to Mishler and the appellant and then bowled several games with them and some other customers. The appellant and Mishler bowled over 200 and signed a prize card. Mr. Vuko then returned to his duties behind the bar and noticed that Mishler and the appellant had been missing for about 20 minutes. Vuko was told by one of the other customers that they had gone to the men's room. Vuko entered the men's room and saw Mishler combing his hair at an angle to the mirror in such a way as to hide a part of the door to the lavatory, and with the water tap going full blast. The appellant was not in sight and Vuko did not see him again that evening. Vuko knew Mishler who had come to the bar at other times to cash checks. One of the doors of the lavatory was slightly ajar. Vuko asked Mishler if everything was all right, received an affirmative reply, and left after washing his hands.
He noticed that the padlock on the door which led from the men's room to the storeroom was secured in its place. This storeroom door opened into the washroom 'from your right', and was always kept locked except when used by the janitor.
Vuko did not see Mishler or the appellant leave the bar. He looked over the premises and noted that the storeroom door in the men's room was locked. He closed the bar and left about 2:30 a. m. to drive a friend home. When he returned about 3:45 a. m. to finish cleaning up, he noticed that the two cash register drawers were open and that his hi-fidelity equipment was gone. He went into the men's room and noticed that the door between the men's room and the storeroom was completely open and had a number of was still locked, although the screws which held this lock to the wall had been removed. The back door of the storeroom which led to the back yard was also open, but had not been forced. This door could only be opened from the inside. A lug wrench was found in the back yard. The police found a fingerprint on the storeroom side of the door which connects the storeroom and the men's room. The fingerprint was subsequently identified as the appellant's.
Subsequently, Vuko picked Mishler's picture from a file of suspects presented to him by the police. When the police officer went to Mishler's home at 902 Divisadero Street, Mrs. Mishler told him that her husband was at the Baldwins at 529 Lawton Street. Mishler first denied being in the Golden Cask on the evening in question, but later identified Vuko as the owner of the bar and admitted having been in the Golden Cask, but stated he had been alone and then spent the night at the Baldwins.
Subsequently, the police discovered that the appellant roomed with the Baldwins at 529 Lawton Street. The appellant's fingerprint matched the one found on the storeroom door. The police officer also noticed that a lug wrench was missing from the Baldwin car; the lug wrench found in the back yard fit one of the wheels on the Baldwin car. When first questioned by the police, the appellant stated that he went to the Golden Cask alone, on the bus, and was not with Mishler. At the trial, the appellant admitted that on July 5, 1959, he had gone to the Golden Cask with Mishler in the Baldwin car. He further testified that he had been in the men's room that night, but did not touch the door to the storeroom. He further stated that he had been in the Golden Cask about 9:30 p. m. on the previous night [July 4]. He had gone to the men's room but he could not find a towel to dry his hands. He noticed that the storeroom door was 'about halfway open', so he pushed it open, and thus his wet fingerprint got on the door. He found no paper towels and finally dried his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Amata
...nor is an appellate court required to reappraise its effect. (People v. Benford, supra, 53 Cal.2d 1, 345 P.2d 928; People v. Beem, 192 Cal.App.2d 207, 211, 13 Cal.Rptr. 238; People v. Moreno, 237 Cal.App.2d 602, 605, 47 Cal.Rptr. 287.) Solicitation by a decoy to procure the counterfeit trav......
-
People v. McFarland
...equally in vigor today. (See, e. g., People v. Michaels (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 194, 198(1), 13 Cal.Rptr. 900; People v. Beem (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 207, 211(6), 13 Cal.Rptr. 238; People v. Roy (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 551, 554(1), 346 P.2d 415; People v. Davis (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 365, 369(6), ......
-
People v. Lindsay
...People v. Abner, supra, 209 Cal.App.2d 484, 490, 25 Cal.Rptr. 882; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 589, 305 P.2d 1; People v. Beem, 192 Cal.App.2d 207, 211, 13 Cal.Rptr. 238.) The factors emphasized by defendant on the issue of identity, namely, that the victims' description of their assail......
-
People v. Quinn
...may be alone sufficient to identify a defendant as a criminal. (People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478, 495, 165 P.2d 3; People v. Beem, 192 Cal.App.2d 207, 211, 13 Cal.Rptr. 238.) Appellant relies on People v. Flores, 58 Cal.App.2d 764, 137 P.2d 767, which holds that in a prosecution for grand t......