People v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 18 July 1951
• Docket Number: Cr. 4610
• Citation: 234 P.2d 181,105 Cal.App.2d 530
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CRAWFORD et al.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 181

234 P.2d 181

105 Cal.App.2d 530

PEOPLE v. CRAWFORD et al.

Cr. 4610.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

July 18, 1951.

Allan M. Moore, Beverly Hills, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, the above named defendants were accused in Count I of the crime of conspiracy to commit grand theft, and in Count II with the offense of attempted grand theft. Though not named as a defendant, one Dyer was named in the information as a person who had participated in the alleged offenses with the defendants.

To both counts of the information each defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Following a jury trial defendants Crawford and Atadero were found guilty as charged in each count of the information, and defendant Cabatuan was acquitted on both counts. Defendants Crawford and Atadero moved for a new trial which motion was denied. From the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant Crawford alone prosecutes this appeal.

The grounds upon which the appeal herein is predicated make it necessary to epitomize the evidence which gave rise to this prosecution. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are required to do following a conviction, People v. Carothers, 77 Cal.App.2d 252, 253, 175 P.2d 30; People v. Cayer, 102 Cal.App.2d 643, 228 P.2d 70, the record reveals testimony that Sergeant Schultz of the Los Angeles Police Department received information from his superior officers that a certain person was offering to sell stolen liquor to liquor stores. Sergeant Schultz was instructed to contact a man named Dyer and was furnished with the latter's telephone number. Officer Waggoner was assigned to communicate with said Dyer. On July 6, 1950, Officer Waggoner telephoned to the number theretofore given him and talked to Dyer. He told Dyer his name was Johnnie Flocca, and that he owned a liquor store. He asked Dyer if he had some liquor for sale. Dyer said that he did have some and would like to talk to Waggoner. He asked him to meet him at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Normandie Avenue in the City of Los Angeles later that day. Waggoner agreed to meet him as suggested. At the meeting, Dyer said that he had a carload of stolen whiskey that he would like to sell, and Waggoner said he would like to buy it. They made an appointment to meet again on the same corner at 9:00 a. m. on July 8th.

On July 8, Waggoner went to the corner in a private automobile and met Dyer, who represented that his name was Melvin. It was then arranged that Waggoner should meet other persons. The appellant joined them in the car and was introduced to Waggoner, who was called Johnnie, as Stanley. The appellant told Waggoner that he had a truckload of stolen whiskey and asked him if he would like to buy it, and Waggoner said he would. The appellant said Waggoner would have to talk to his partner, Dyer, about it. Dyer asked what kind of whiskey Waggoner wanted. When Waggoner asked what kind he had, Dyer said he had all kinds, which he would sell for $25 or $35 a case, depending on the brand, and that he had several cases of cigarettes, which he would sell for $25 a case.

Dyer said that he had to meet a man who had just come in on a boat, and who had some 'stuff' for him. Waggoner asked him what kind of 'stuff' he had, and Dyer said it was diamonds, silk and Chinese herbs. When Waggoner asked what kind of herbs, Dyer said it was opium. About that time, Atadero approached the car wearing a Merchant Marine cap. Dyer invited him into the car, and after Dyer assured him that Waggoner was a friend, Atadero got in. The appellant said; 'Did you bring the stuff?' Atadero said, 'Yes,' and handed the appellant a small package about three inches by two, wrapped in a white paper with Chinese or Japanese figures on it. The appellant opened the paper and pulled out a red can with a green wrapping around it, also containing Japanese or Chinese figures. He said, 'This is the real stuff. How much do you want for it?' Atadero said, 'I want $200.' The appellant took out an envelope containing some money, and counted out some currency. Atadero put the money into his pocket and the appellant said, 'Have you got any more of this stuff?' Atadero said, 'Yes, I have got about a hundred cans of it. I am going to get rid of it. I thought you wanted more than one can at this time.' Atadero then got out of the car and left the scene.

The appellant then said, 'I have got to go call the Chinaman so he can pick this stuff up right away. I want to get rid of it.' He handed the can to Waggoner and said, 'Will you hold onto this until I get back. I will be right back.' Dyer said to Waggoner, 'That is pretty good stuff that you have got there.' Waggoner said, 'What do you mean, 'it is pretty good stuff'?' Dyer said, 'That is good opium there. Whey don't you get in with Mr. Dyer (Stanley?) here and do business with him? He buys it for $200 a can and he sells it for $400. That is 100 per cent profit.' The appellant came back to the car. Dyer said to Officer Waggoner, 'When the Chinaman gets here, tell him that the stuff belongs to you and that you want $425 for the can. If he don't want it for $425, if he offers you $400, take it.'

Cal.App.batuan then walked up to the car and got in, after the appellant told him that Waggoner was a friend of his. Cabatuan asked to see the stuff, and inquired about the price. Waggoner told him they wanted $425. Cabatuan refused to pay $425, and offered $400. The appellant said they would take it. Waggoner handed the can to the appellant, and the appellant handed it to Cabatuan. Cabatuan pulled out a bundle of currency, counted some out and handed it to the appellant. He then left the scene.

Dyer said, 'I just made $200 on this deal here. This Filipino boy has a hundred cans of it. I could really make a lot more money if I had enough to buy it all. I only have $2000. That's only enough for 12 cans. I sure wish I had the rest of the money.' Dyer then said, 'Why don't you go in with Crawford and both of you clean up on this deal?' Waggoner asked the appellant how much money he would need, and the appellant said, 'I will need $7,800 more. Do you think it is possible you could raise it?' Waggoner said that he might be able to raise it, but that he would have to have a little time. The appellant said that was all right. He said, 'We can sell every bit of this stuff to the Chinaman. We can sell it. We can buy it for $200 a can and sell it for $400 a can. You see if you can raise some money * * *. You make the meeting place and we will meet there at 2:00 o'clock.' Waggoner agreed to do so, and gave the appellant his home phone number so he could call and find out where the meeting place would be. The appellant and Dyer got out of the car.

Waggoner arranged a meeting place at a room in a motel at 2901 South Flower Street. The appellant telephoned Waggoner and learned the place of meeting. Waggoner was there at 2:00 p.m., and he had arranged for other police officers, Schultz, Berone and Gerissi, to be in another room of the motel. The appellant was standing outside of the room Waggoner had obtained for the meeting when Waggoner arrived there. He and Waggoner went into the room, and the appellant said it would be about 10 minutes before Atadero got there with the 'stuff'. He asked Waggoner if he brought the money. Waggoner said he had it outside in the car. About 2:10 p. m., Atadero arrived in the room. He asked if Waggoner had brought the money, and Waggoner said that he had. Atadero then said he would go get the stuff. He then went out the door and returned in about five minutes with a small brown suitcase containing several small packages wrapped in papers with Chinese or Japanese figures on it. He said that the cans contained opium.

Waggoner said that he would like to see the 'stuff', so Atadero opened the suitcase and showed him one of the cans. Waggoner said he would go out to his car and bring the money in. He walked out the door and notified the other officers that it was time to come in. The other officers went to the door where the appellant and Atadero were, announced that they were police officers, and demanded to be let in. Officer Schultz tried to open the door, but could not, so he kicked it open. As they entered the room, Waggoner saw the appellant throw something onto the bed. He picked it up. It was two bundles of blank paper each with a $20 bill on top and a $1.00 bill on the bottom, and a band around it stamped $1,000. There was also money of the Japanese government and Chinese government. There was a total of $58 in American money in the bundles.

After the officers had identified themselves as such, the appellant said to Officer Waggoner, 'Well, I guess you have got me. There isn't opium in those cans. I was trying to pull the can game on you. You should have been a bunco artist like myself instead of a police officer. Instead of me buncoing you, you buncoed me. I just took a fellow out in Pomona for $1800 about a month ago. I was trying to take you the same way but it just backfired on me.'

Later at the police station, Sergeant Schultz talked to the appellant. He asked him what kind of work he did, and the appellant answered, 'You are kidding, of course.' When asked again, he said, 'I don't work, I am a hustler.' The Sergeant asked him how many times he had operated the 'can game', and the appellant said, 'Well, I have made quite a few big scores lately.' He said he had taken two people in Pomona for $1800 apiece, and another man for $2600. He said he had been 'working bunco' all his life. At a later conversation, Sergeant Schultz asked the appellant how he 'planned on getting rid' of Waggoner if the deal had gone through, as he was of the opinion that...