People v. Beverly
| Decision Date | 08 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3900 |
| Citation | 200 Cal.App.2d 119,19 Cal.Rptr. 67 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Bruce BEVERLY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William Bruce Beverly, appellant, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant, in propria persona, appeals from judgment of conviction, after jury trial, of second degree burglary, 1, 2 and from the order denying new trial.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
At defendant's request this court appointed an attorney to represent him on this appeal. The attorney had the record augmented to include the arguments of counsel, and apparently made a painstaking examination of the entire record. Thereafter he wrote to defendant at length, stating that he had concluded that 'there is no meritorious point to be urged upon appeal.' Sending us a copy of the letter, the attorney requested to be relieved of his assignment. We granted this request and gave defendant, from time to time, extensions of time in which to file an opening brief. Defendant having failed so to do for approximately eight months, the appeal was submitted. The court has thoroughly examined the record, including the points which, according to the counsel's letter, defendant desired to raise. From such examination we are convinced there is no merit to the appeal.
Defendant's contentions are:
(1) Alleged misconduct of the district attorney in mentioning defendant's prior convictions.
(2) Alleged conflict in the testimony of Officers Frazier and Morris.
(3) Alleged error in instructions on circumstantial evidence.
An additional point which the court, from its study of the record, felt should be considered, is:
(4) Was there an unlawful stopping of defendant's car and search and seizure?
EVIDENCE.
About 9:33 p. m. Police Officers Frazier and Morris were patroling in a radio car the Hunter's Point area in San Francisco. Officer Frazier observed a car coming out of Keith Street. The portion of the area from which the car was emerging consisted primarily of automobile wreckers' shops. Keith Street here is a dirt road, running through this area which has no residences at all, and in addition to the automobile wreckers has meat places, tallow works, and a battery exchange. As the officers, in uniform and in a police marked automobile, approached the oncoming car the latter did not increase its speed. The officers turned their spotlight (they did not use the red light) on the car. It then pulled over, and Officer Frazier went over to it to interrogate the occupants. Officer Frazier testified that his attention was attracted to the car because 'it was kind of unusual for a car to be coming out of that area at that time * * * all the auto wreckers at that time is usually closed.' Frazier asked defendant, who was the driver of the car, what he was doing coming out of that area. Defendant said that he wasn't in the area. Officer Frazier noticed several radiators in the back seat of the car. When asked where he got the radiators defendant replied 'from here and there in the last couple of days * * *' Defendant said that he had bought them from a man named Charley. Frazier then asked McMurray what he knew about the radiators. McMurray said that he had been with defendant since 11:00 a. m. and that the radiators were in the car at that time.
On request defendant opened the trunk of his car, where there were two batteries and two generators. After another patrol car arrived on call, Frazier and Morris checked the automobile wreckers' area. Approaching the B & F Wreckers they observed that the center panel of the door was at an angle. Entering, they phoned the manager of the company, who came down. On checking, the manager found missing radiators, generators and batteries which were there when he closed for the day about 8:30 p. m. Going to defendant's car he identified the radiators, generators and batteries therein as the missing ones. The manager testified that defendant (alone) had been around the yard in the morning of the day in question, and again just before he closed, and had been in the office where the radiators were in sight. He stated both defendant and McMurray were on the premises the previous morning. In defendant's car there was additionally a 'cinch handle' which the manager identified as one missing from a workman's tool box about half an hour after defendant had been on the premises the previous day.
Defendant testified that in the morning of the day he was arrested he had been in a bar run by a man known as 'Mac' who introduced him to a man who wanted a tail light and a quarter panel put on his car. Defendant and the customer remained in the bar from about 9 o'clock until 1:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon. Leaving the keys to his car with the bartender for the customer to use defendant's car if he so desired, defendant in the customer's car went to various wrecking yards including B & F's looking for the needed parts. He claimed to be alone. He returned to the bar and then went several places, ending up at Bridgeview about 8:00 p. m. There he picked up McMurray, who wanted him to drive him home, picking up some meat which McMurray had cached in a ditch about a block away. When they arrived at the ditch McMurray claimed to have found the radiators, etc., in the ditch, and asked defendant if he would haul them for him. Defendant agreed, and McMurray placed them in the car. They then proceeded to Charley Cambridge's who defendant claimed would know where Mac had placed defendant's keys, Mac's place being closed when he visited it prior to going to Bridgeview. On the circuitous route to Charley's they were stopped by the police. Defendant claims that he told this same story to the police.
The manager of the apartment where defendant lived testified that he saw defendant around there about 11:00 a. m., at 1:30-2:00 p. m. and about 4:00-5:00 p. m. that day, and that defendant was driving his own car.
Defendant's girl friend, who shared the apartment with him, testified that defendant was in and out of the apartment all day and left about 7:00 p. m. He was using his own car.
McMurray testified that he did not see defendant before 7:00 p. m. and then it was at Bridgeview. He finally changed the time to 9:00 p. m. Defendant took him to get the meat from the ditch. The events of the evening were vague of him because he had been drinking. At the ditch he stumbled over the radiators. Defendant helped him place them in the car.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
Obviously the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. At 8:30 the goods were in the B & F Auto Wreckers' office; at 9:30 in the possession of defendants. That they were stolen is clear. While mere possession of stolen goods is not sufficient alone to sustain a conviction of burglary, it is a circumstance strongly indicating guilt, and only slight corroborative evidence is needed to sustain conviction. (People v. Robinson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 69, 7 Cal.Rptr. 202; People v. Stokes (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 780, 7 Cal.Rptr. 919.) Where the goods possessed were but recently stolen the amount of corroborative evidence need by very slight. (People v. Swanson (1932) 120 Cal.App. 173, 7 P.2d 380.) Guilty conduct (People v. Montgomery (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 121, 302 P.2d 48) and false explanations are sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary when defendant is found in possession of stolen goods. (People v. McClure (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 631, 284 P.2d 887.) Defendant's false statement to the officers that he had bought the goods from Charley that morning and was taking them to him, his statement that he had not used his car all day, and the other circumstances of the case, all support the verdict.
On cross-examination the district attorney brought out only the dates and crimes of which defendant had been convicted. This he had the right to do in impeachment of defendant's testimony. (People v. Adamson (1946) 27 Cal.2d 478, 494, 165 P.2d 3; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Machel
...of parked car at night); People v. Simon (1955) 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531 (pedestrians outdoors at night); People v. Beverly (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67 (motorists at night); People v. Anushevitz (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785 (motorist--time of day not indicate......
-
People v. Nickles
...v. Martin, 46 Cal.2d 106, 108, 293 P.2d 52; People v. Doherty, 67 Cal.2d 9, 22, 59 Cal.Rptr. 857, 429 P.2d 177; People v. Beverly, 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 125, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67; People v. Adam, 1 Cal.App.3d 486, 488, 81 Cal.Rptr. 738.) This rule has been interpreted to mean that circumstances au......
-
People v. Manis
...People v. Machel, 234 Cal.App.2d 37, 46, 44 Cal.Rptr. 126; People v. Cowman, 223 Cal.App.2d 109, 35 Cal.Rptr. 528; People v. Beverly, 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 125, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67; People v. King, 175 Cal.App.2d 386, 390, 346 P.2d 235; People v. Jackson, 164 Cal.App.2d 759, 331 P.2d The implicat......
-
People v. Lopez
...A.C. 465, 467-468(1a), 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658; People v. Blodgett (1956) 46 Cal.2d 114, 117(2-3), 293 P.2d 57; People v. Beverly (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 125, 126(9-14), 19 Cal.Rptr. 67; People v. Nichols (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 223, 228(9-11), 16 Cal.Rptr. 328; People v. Eychas (196......