People v. Cagle, Cr. 5597
| Decision Date | 16 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5597 |
| Citation | 141 Cal.App.2d 612,297 P.2d 44 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Calvin Hudson CAGLE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harrison M. Dunham, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor Griffith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of attempted burglary. He appeals from the judgment on the sole ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.
While the home of Louis Perrotti, at 4247 Eleventh Avenue, Los Angeles, was unattended on the evening of August 27, 1955, his next door neighbor, Mrs. Betty Gregory, heard a disturbing noise 'like a lock being moved or a window * * *' She called out 'Louie' thinking Mr. Perrotti had returned home. She did not, however, receive any response. Upon a recurrence of this noise Mrs. Gregory raised the Venetian blind and observed a man about six feet from the Perrotti home. He was about ten feet from her house. He was cutting across the driveway. She watched him all the way out. It was dark, being shortly after 8:00 o'clock. All the lights in the Gregory house were on. Mrs. Gregory did not see his face. He was wearing a sport shirt--'a light shirt with figures in it'--that hung out, and light trousers. Mrs. Gregory called to her sister, Mrs. Koch, who was in the front room. They both followed the man. Mrs. Gregory observed a police car. She told the officers what she had seen. Mrs. Koch continued to follow the man. The police inquired of her, 'Which way did he go?' She pointed him out; 'he was in the center of the street, in the light.' The police brought him back to the Perrotti driveway. Mrs. Gregory identified the man as the person she saw leaving the Perrotti home. Not 'more than 10 minutes' elapsed between the time she saw him leaving the Perrotti premises and his return by the police.
A small knife was taken from defendant by the police upon his arrest. Microscopic examination of the blade revealed a series of uniform and parallel scratches similar to those made by screen wire. Some debris was removed from the cutting edge of the blade. That was compared with material taken from the Perrotti screen that had been cut. The materials were similar. A chemical test was also made of the debris to determine whether it had rust in it; the test showed that it had, similar to the debris removed from the screen.
When defendant was apprehended the officers observed that his forearms, his pants, and the tip of one of his shoes had on them what appeared to be white oxide paint. The Perrotti house was painted white with a green trim.
When arrested, defendant told the officer he was supposed to meet his girl friend 'down here on West Washington some place.' When the officer pointed out that he was quite a distance from Washington Boulevard defendant refused to tell anything more.
Four days after his arrest, Officer Wright questioned defendant. He explained his presence in the neighborhood by relating that he had been drinking with a man he knew at 43d Street and Central Avenue, in Los Angeles; that the friend was too drunk to drive, so defendant started to drive the friend's car back to the latter's home. The friend got mad at the way defendant was driving the car, so defendant got out of the car and left him. Defendant admitted going 'between a couple of houses over around 11th Avenue' but insisted he just went back there to urinate. He said a lady spoke to him while he was there. The officer then asked him, 'Well, did you cut a screen back there?' Defendant replied, 'You know I can't say that.'
Defendant does not question that someone attempted to break into the Perrotti house. His position is that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he is the person who attempted such entry.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial