People v. Cook
Decision Date | 05 April 1965 |
Citation | 43 Cal.Rptr. 646,233 Cal.App.2d 435 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Juanita COOK, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 9721. |
Fitzgerald & Davis and Alexander Fitzgerald, Los Angeles, by appointment of the District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Rothman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was convicted in a nonjury trial of violating Penal Code, § 487, sub. 1: grand theft. She appeals from the judgment.
On March 2, 1963, the manager of a men's clothing store in Los Angeles noticed a man leaving through the back door of the store carrying a number of suits. He followed the man out the door, saw him enter a parked car, the engine of which was racing, and then approached the man and told him to drop the suits. The man turned to appellant who was seated behind the steering wheel and said something which the manager could not hear. The manager repeated his demand to which neither the man nor appellant responded. The manager then went to the rear of the car, removed a cloth covering the license plate and wrote down the license number.
An inventory check revealed that eight suits, valued by the manager at $29.95 a piece, 1 had been stolen.
On April 8, 1963, appellant was arrested and interrogated at the Los Angeles County Jail. Officer Beruk testified that at that time he said to appellant 'we had a burglary report where a car was used. In told her the license number, particularly where this burglary had occurred, where this fellow went into the store and removed I think it was eight suits at the time. * * * I named the store and the address on Crenshaw Boulevard. She says,
'I asked her if she retained any money from the suits or got any money from the suits. She said no.
'I asked her if she knew where the suits were presently. She said, 'No, I do not know where they are.'
Appellant contends that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that the value of the goods stolen was in excess of two hundred dollars (Penal Code, § 487, sub. 1.)
On cross-examination, it was brought out that the manager testifying at the preliminary hearing had fixed the value of '* * * a couple of these suits [at] * * * $29.95 * * *.' He also testified that his store operated on a 'markup' basis of '* * * around 35 or 40 per cent.'
It is well established that the value to be placed on stolen property for purposes of section 487 'is the fair market value of the property and not the value of the property to any particular individual.' (People v. Lizarraga, 122 Cal.App.2d 436, 438, 264 P.2d 953; People v. Ciani, 104 Cal.App. 596, 286 P. 459; People v. Williams, 169 Cal.App.2d 400, 403, 337 P.2d 134.)
Witkin states the rule as follows: (1 Witkin, Calif. Crimes 346)
Evidence of value is, manifestly, an element of the crime charged that should warrant the closest scrutiny by defense counsel when the items stolen may have a value dependent in large part on such factors as mark-up and the type of store victimized; and it would be open to appellant's counsel, if not incumbent upon him, to show, for example, that the list price being paid for similar merchandise in the vicinity was lower than the alleged price of the goods.
The policy behind the fair market value rule is well stated in People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 182 N.Y.S.2d 361 at p. 363, 156 N.E.2d 69, at p. 70, as follows:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, however, appellant could not expect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeBruce v. State, 6 Div. 189
...to present evidence to support this contention. State v. Coleman, supra, 556, 576 P.2d 925 (dissenting opinion); People v. Cook, 233 Cal.App.2d 435, 438, 43 Cal.Rptr. 646 (1965); State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 251 N.W.2d 705 (1977); People v. Irrizari, supra [5 N.Y.2d 142, 179 N.Y.S.2d 1......
-
State v. White
...to present evidence to support this contention. State v. Coleman, supra, 556, 576 P.2d 925 (dissenting opinion); People v. Cook, 233 Cal.App.2d 435, 438, 43 Cal.Rptr. 646 (1965); State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 251 N.W.2d 705 (1977); People v. Irrizari, supra. The defendant's failure to i......
-
Com. v. Hanes
...supra, 346 A.2d at 829 (value of stock in trade); accord State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, 388 P.2d 429 (1964); People v. Cook, 233 Cal.App.2d 435, 43 Cal.Rptr. 646 (1965); Maisel v. People, 166 Colo. 161, 442 P.2d 399 (1968); Lee v. People, 137 Colo. 465, 326 P.2d 660 (1958); State v. White,......
-
People v. Cook
...App. 3d at pages 106-109. 63. People v. Tijerina (1969) 1 Cal.3d 41, 45, 81 Cal. Rptr. 264, 459 P.2d 680. 64. People v. Cook (1965) 233 Cal. App. 2d 435, 438, 43 Cal. Rptr. 646. 65. People v. More (1935) 10 Cal. App. 2d 144, 145, 51 P.2d 175; People v. Haney (1932) 126 Cal.App. 473, 475, 14......