People v. Cartier, Cr. 6619

• Decision Date: 25 May 1959
• Docket Number: Cr. 6619
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas George CARTIER, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 172

339 P.2d 172

170 Cal.App.2d 613

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas George CARTIER, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6619.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

May 25, 1959.

Thomas George Cartier, in pro. per.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

In a court trial, Thomas George Cartier was convicted of second-degree burglary and was sentenced to nine months in the county jail. He appeals from the judgment and from the denial of his motion for new trial.

Upon application of appellant for appointment of counsel the matter was referred to the Committee on Criminal Appeals of the Los Angeles Bar Association with a request for a report which would direct our attention to any matter disclosed by the record which would indicate that the applicant might be entitled to some relief. Upon receipt of a report from a member of the committee that no meritorious ground of appeal had been found, and in accordance with out settled practice, we examined the record in order to ascertain whether appointment of counsel would serve any useful purpose. Having determined that the appeal appeared to be without merit we denied the application for appointment of counsel and notified appellant of our order, substantially extending his time to file a brief. No brief having been filed, we have re-examined the record and are disposing of the appeal by written opinion.

The evidence consisted of that received at the preliminary hearing and additional evidence introduced at the trial. On the morning of June 19, 1958, an employe of Durlund's Fireside Cafe in Los Angeles discovered that the premises had been broken into and the office ransacked; a floor safe containing about $1,100 in cash and checks had been cracked and damaged and money sacks were lying on the floor. It was established that the safe had been opened by punching out the dial. Cartier was identified by Durlund's bartender as having been drinking at the bar in the company of another man from midnight to 2 a. m. on June 19th.

Four Los Angeles police officers assigned to the Hollywood Detective Bureau went to the apartment occupied by appellant and his wife on Los Feliz Boulevard shortly after midnight on July 3rd. The officers had neither a search warrant nor a warrant for Cartier's arrest. They entered the apartment using a passkey supplied by the apartment house manager, identified themselves as police officers and placed the Cartiers under arrest for burglary. The officers made a search of the premises and discovered a suitcase and an overnight bag in a closet in the kitchen. Inside the bags they found two punches, a dial puller, a flashlight, a pair of cotton gloves, pry bars, hammers and other tools. Officer Gabard, a qualified police chemist, testified that he made a microscopic comparison of marks found on the punches and on the lid belonging to the damaged safe in Durlund's office. He stated his opinion that the marks on the lid were made by one of the punches found in Cartier's apartment. The punches, the safe lid and several photographs showing the marks on the punches and on the lid were received in evidence. The punch, which is before us as an exhibit, shows many definite irregularities. The photograph of the lid also shows clear and distinct indentations made by the tool that was used in punching out the dial. The exhibits furnished a sound basis for an accurate comparison of the marks on the punch with the marks on the safe.

Officer Peter Bishonden was one of the investigating officers in the case. Over the objection of appellant's counsel that the corpus delicti had not been established. Bishonden was permitted to relate the substance of several conversations he had with Cartier at the police station between July 3rd and 10th, the date of the latter's arraignment. Bishonden testified that on July 3rd he showed Cartier the tools found in the apartment and asked whether they were his; appellant replied that they were. During the conversation on July 10th, Cartier told the officer that he used the tools in making minor electrical repairs around his apartment. When the officer suggested that the tools were burglar's tools and that appellant had been using them on 'jobs', Cartier denied knowing that they were burglar's tools and stated: 'Well, I never said they were mine.' Upon being asked what he used the punches for, appellant told Bishonden that he could not remember. In response to the officer's questions about the Durlund's burglary, Cartier said: 'There is nothing I can tell you about it.'

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied his guilt of burglary. The tools he had in his apartment were ordinary household tools and none of the tools shown to him at the police station by Officer Bishonden belonged to him. The suitcase and the bag discovered by the officers were not his. He did not own any punches and denied telling Bishonden that the punches which were received in evidence as exhibits were his.

There was sufficient evidence to prove Cartier guilty of burglary. The court could reasonably infer from the testimony of the police technician that the punch found in his apartment had been used to force open Durlund's safe. The fact that appellant had in his possession the tool used in the burglary, together with the evidence of his presence in the establishment on the...