People v. Canard
| Decision Date | 26 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 11448 |
| Citation | 65 Cal.Rptr. 15,257 Cal.App.2d 444 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Emmett CANARD, Cyril Myers, Peter Stafford and George Miller, Defendants andAppellants. |
Russell E. Parsons and Harry E. Weiss, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants Emmett Canard and Peter Stafford.
Forno & Lewis and Joseph T. Forno, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants Cyril Myers and George Miller.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard J. Bechefsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In an indictment returned by the grand jury, Peter Stafford and Henry De Maddalena, Los Angeles police officers, together with Emmett Canard, Cyril Myers, George Miller and Maury Adler, were charged with conspiracy to offer and give bribes to executive officers of the State of California (Pen.Code. § 67), to ask for and receive bribes for officers, employees and appointees of the City of Los Angeles (Pen.Code, § 68), to engage in bookmaking (Pen.Code, § 337a), and to obstruct justice and the due administration of the laws pertaining to bookmaking and bribery (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 5). Seven overt acts were charged, each allged to have occurred during the period from February 15, 1964, through March 20, 1964. A jury found each defendant guilty, and returned a special verdict finding that the objects of the conspiracy were those charged in the indictment. Stafford, Canard, Myers and Miller appeal. Stafford's appeal is from the judgment sentencing him to state prison. The other defendants appeal from the order granting them probation (which is treated as a final judgment under Penal Code, section 1237).
Generally speaking, defendants urge the same basic contentions. At the outset, to answer their challenge that the evidence is insufficient, we present a summary of the pertinent facts (viewing them as we must in the light most favorable to the People).
Defendants Stafford and De Maddalena were members of the Los Angeles Police Department. Stafford was a supervising sergeant assigned to the bookmaking detail of the Central Vice Division. He was an acknowledged expert in bookmaking law enforcement. Late in 1963, upon the recommendation of Stafford, Officer De Maddalena was transferred to the Central Vice bookmaking detail to work under Stafford. On February 1, 1964, De Maddalena and Officer Joseph Gunn were assigned as partners to work the West Los Angeles area.
On February 15, Gunn and De Maddalena were on an assignment at the Kismet Bar, when De Maddalena stated, 'Here's some money for you.' He handed Gunn a $50 bill and told him 'It's for your New York vacation!' Gunn asked what he had to do for the money and De Maddalena said,
After leaving De Maddalena, Gunn went directly to Lieutenant Wilson, the acting division commander, and told him what had transpired. At a meeting held on February 17, with Captain Nelson (the Administrative Vice-Commander) and Captain Mills (the Internal Affairs Commander) both in attendance, Gunn was instructed to go along with De Maddalena in order to find out all the officers and criminal elements involved. He was to report what he found out to Captain Mills.
The next time Gunn saw De Maddalena was on February 18. De Maddalena told him he would be paid $200 once a month. On February 20, outside the Clown Town Bar, De Maddalena, then in a state of intoxication, showed Gunn the last page of his personal notebook. It contained letters and numerals. He told Gunn it was a code and represented the phone numbers for 17 'front and back offices' for Cyril Myers, the biggest sports bookmaker in Los Angeles.
'Front offices' and 'back offices' are terms used to describe places where illegal bets are received and recorded by bookmakers. A front office is staffed by a clerk who takes bets phoned in by bettors and temporarily records them on objects which are quickly destructible. The back office is the place where the bets are thereafter permanently recorded, usually on pads called betting markers. Periodically, the back office clerk telephones the front office clerk, and the latter relays the bets received and then destroys his record.
After showing Gunn his notebook, De Maddalena stated that Gunn's job would be to periodically check 'the telephone board' at Administrative Vice.
When an Administrative Vice officer wants the address for a telephone number of a suspected bookmaking establishment, he writes the number on a clipboard referred to as 'the telephone board.' It is kept by an employee in the Administrative Section of the department. By calling the Intelligence Division (who would in turn contact the telephone company), the employee secures the address of the telephone for the investigating officer.
De Maddalena told Gunn that he should bring the telephone numbers he got off the telephone board to him to check against the numbers in his notebook. If they matched one of the numbers of Cyril Myers, he would warn him about the impending investigation.
On February 22, De Maddalena told Gunn that the payoff would be on the 15th of the month. He stated, on February 26, that Sergeant Stafford was part of the deal. The next day he said that Canard, of the Crown Hill organization at Third and Lucas Streets, and some other bookmakers were also involved.
On February 27, De Maddalena said he had to attend a meeting in Pasadena with Myers and that Stafford would probably be there. Two days later he told Gunn about having gone to the meeting. He said that Stafford, Myers and Maury Adler, who managed Myer's dress shop at Wilshire and Oxford, were at the meeting; Myers told them that he had changed his phone numbers; Myers also agreed to pay them $200 a month. De Maddalena further stated that he had mentioned Gunn's name at the meeting.
On March 4 De Maddalena told Gunn that five bookmakers, including Myers and Canard, were paying them off; Pete Stafford had only about four months to go in Central Vice; when he finished his tour of duty, he and Gunn would be the bosses of the operation; Stafford was picking up all the money and making all the payoffs; because Stafford had numerous ways 'to cut the pot,' he couldn't afford to give them more than $200 each; Stafford himself cleared about $700 or $800 a month.
On the same date, De Maddalena instructed Gunn to copy down certain telephone numbers. He gave Gunn 16 numbers. Some, he said to put under Crown Hill, including DU 9--0888. Some, he told Gunn to put under Cyril Myers name, including a back office number, PL 4--2261 and a front office number, RE 3--4745. Madison 6--4572 was to be put under the name George Miller. Gunn was also given Myers' and Stafford's home numbers and Adler's numbers at Myers' dress shop. De Maddalena said that, if any of the numbers came up and he was not around, Gunn was to call 'Cy, Maury or Pete' and warn them. To identify himself when he called, he was instructed to say 'this is Mr. Harris calling.'
On March 9, De Maddalena told Gunn he was going to see George Miller; he would get some money from Miller for protecting a Barboudi game Miller was going to open up. On March 11, Gunn was told by De Maddalena that he planned to see Stafford on Sunday to pick up their money.
Gunn reported everything De Maddalena had told him to his superiors. On March 12, following a plan set up by them, Gunn went at 11:15 a.m. to Administrative Vice and picked up two phone numbers from Lt. Wilson. They were numbers for a back office and a front office listed to Cyril Myers. The front office number was RE 3--4745. He immediately went down to the Internal Affairs Division and from there dialed Pete Stafford's telephone extension. The following conversation took place:
'Q Pete?
A Yeah.
Q This is Joe Gunn.
A Yeah.
Q Can you talk?
A Yeah.
Q All right. Look Hank's off today.
A Yeah.
Q And he sent me out on that stakeout this morning out in Beverly Hills on Oscar Stewart.
A Yeah.
Q And I just got back in the office a little while ago and Wilson is briefing Safford in there.
A Yeah.
Q And a couple other squads and they're going out to hit a back and a front right now; they're gone.
A Yeah.
Q They just left the office.
A You don't know who it is or nothing?
Q Yeah, I got the numbers. And it matches. The ones we got for Cy at the book.
A Yeah.
Q Hank gave me. Do you want them?
A The one for who?
Q For Cy.
A Yeah. Okay.
Q All right.
A Okay. Fine. That's enough. Okay.
Q Do you want the front?
A Yeah, give me the front.
Q Okay, the front was REpublic--
A Yeah.
Q--34745.
A Yeah, Okay, fine.
Q Okay.
A Thank you.
Q You'll take care of it, then?
A Thank you. Yeah.'
At 11:21 a.m. Stafford was observed leaving the Central Vice office. He went to the lobby of the Police Building and entered a public telephone booth.
On the morning of March 12 Sergeant Safford (not to be confused with defendant Stafford) had been instructed by Lt. Wilson to place Apartment 9 at 12036 South Vermont Avenue under observation. Safford had received the phone number PL4-- 2261 in connection with that address. At 11:45 a.m. he observed a man carrying a bundle leave the apartment.
The man was Wayne Galligan. He was operating a back office from that location. He had received a telephone call telling him to leave.
On March 13, De Maddalena drove with Gunn to Myers' dress shop. He told Gunn he was going inside to get Alder's new back office number. When he returned to the car, he stated that Adler had said they were not going to have a permanent back office number again until they found out where the leak was that resulted in the back office number...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re State Police Litigation
...likewise. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs' expectation of privacy was unreasonable. Defendants rely on People v. Canard, 257 Cal.App.2d 444, 65 Cal.Rptr. 15 (2d Dist. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 912, 89 S.Ct. 231, 21 L.Ed.2d 198 (1968), in which the California Court of Appeals noted......
-
Boulware v. Battaglia
...does not allege facts sufficient to persuade the Court that a civil right could have been violated. Cf. People v. Canard, 257 Cal.App.2d 444, 65 Cal.Rptr. 15, 28-29 (1967). 7 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of......
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...hence one whose testimony need not be corroborated (People v. Gossett, 20 Cal.App.3d 230, 234, 97 Cal.Rptr. 528; People v. Canard, 257 Cal.App.2d 444, 460, 65 Cal.Rptr. 15; People v. Salazar, 201 Cal.App.2d 284, 287, 20 Cal.Rptr. 25; People v. Griffin, 98 Cal.App.2d 1, 22, 219 P.2d 519) or ......
-
State v. Rewolinski
...752 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1985); Jandak v. Village of Brookfield, 520 F.Supp. 815, 822 (N.D.Ill.1981); People v. Canard, 257 Cal.App.2d 444, 466, 65 Cal.Rptr. 15, 29 (1967); People v. Cole, 186 Ill.App.3d, 134 Ill.Dec. 638, 639, 542 N.E.2d 1145, 1146 (1989).The police have a legitimate n......