People v. Danielson
| Decision Date | 11 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8013 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Carl DANIELSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Max Solomon, Los Angeles, and John J. Bradley, Vallejo, for defendant and appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In an indictment returned by the Grand Jury appellant Robert Carl Danielson, Roger Lloyd Schad and Patrick Joseph Reilly were charged in Count I with the crime of bribery, a violation of section 68 of the Penal Code of the State of California; in Count II with soliciting another to join in the crime of bribery, a violation of section 653f of the Penal Code; and in Count III with the crime of conspiracy, a violation of section 182 of the Penal Code. The defendants were tried by a jury and found guilty as charged. Appellant's motion for a new trial was denied, as was has application for probation. Appellant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Following is a brief statement of the facts presented to the court and jury. On November 17, 1960, at around 6 o'clock in the evening Dr. Verdin Chivers, a chiropractor, who had been dining at the Dinnerhorn Restaurant in Covina, left the restaurant without paying his bill. Dr. Chivers had been drinking and had been at the restaurant approximately three hours. When confronted by the manager with respect to the bill before leaving the premises the customer asserted that the money to pay the bill had been left on the table. The police were notified and shortly after the doctor left the restaurant he was stopped by a Covina police officer. Dr. Chivers was advised by the officer that he was being arrested on a drunk driving charge. He was uncooperative and was removed forcibly from his automobile. He was taken to the police department and booked.
At around 6:30 on that evening a Mrs. Margaret Cline received a telephone call from a person who identified himself as Robert Schad and asked for her husband, Dr. Cline. Dr. Cline returned the call around 7:15 p. m. Defendant Schad told Dr. Cline of the arrest of his friend, Dr. Chivers, and that he (Schad) knew a person who could get the charge changed, from 'drunk driving' to 'drunk in auto,' for a certain amount of money. He asked Dr. Cline how much he thought Dr. Chivers would be responsible for to have the charge changed. Dr. Cline stated he would contact Dr. Chivers' wife and speak to her about it and would call Schad back. When he called, Mrs, Chivers was not in. After conferring with his nephew, Sergeant McCain, a deputy sheriff, Dr. Cline called Schad and told him to offer this person $100 and see if that would be sufficient. Schad agreed and said he would return his call. At around 8:45 p. m. Schad advised Dr. Cline that the party had said '$100.00 wasn't nearly enough and that the fine for that charge was $263.00 and that the person wanted $250.00.' Dr. Cline asked how Schad could guarantee, if the money were given, that Dr. Chivers' charge would be dropped or changed from 'drunk driving' to 'drunk in auto.' Schad stated he could not give him any name 'but that it was a city official.' Dr Cline stated he would get in touch with Mrs. Chivers and let him know after a while.
Sergeant McCain then called the Dinnerhorn about 9:15 p. m. and asked for defendant Schad, who was employed as a bartender, saying he was a friend of Dr. Chivers. Schad told McCain that it would take $250 to get him released. When Sergeant McCain stated it was too much money Schad stated that it was the least money the man would take. McCain agreed to call him back. Schad stated he could guarantee that Dr. Chivers would be turned loose with no charges filed.
Between 10 and 10:15 p. m. Dr. Chivers was taken out of his cell in the jail at Covina by appellant Danielson who identified himself as the chief of police. He informed Dr. Chivers that he (Dr. Chivers) had some very good griends at the Dinnerhorn Restaurant who wanted to see him our of jail. The appellant told Dr. Chivers that he had been informed that Chivers had given the officers 'a bad time.'
When Dr. Chivers testified at the trial concerning this conversation he stated, * * *' Appellant asked Dr. Chivers if he would sign a statement to the effect that the officers had probable cause to arrest him, as a protection for the officers. When Dr. Chivers asked appellant if this would be the end of it the appellant assured him affirmatively.
Sergeant McCain called Schad later that night at around 10:30. He told Schad he could not raise the $250 at that time but would guarantee him the money and would bring it over the next day. He asked how 'they' could be assured that no charges would be filed against Dr. Chivers in court and Schad stated that the money would be given to a man who was in position to have Dr. Chivers turned loose with no charges refiled and that he didn't have to worry about it. They arranged for a meeting the following afternoon.
At around 1:35 p. m. the next day, November 18, Sergeant McCain saw Schad at the restaurant. McCain identified himself as the person who had spoken to Schad the previous evening. Defendant Reilly, who like Schad was employed at the restaurant as a bartender, was also present. Schad was off duty at the time and sat with McCain at the bar. They them went to a booth where they talked. McCain told Schad he had the money with him. After considerable conversation McCain again asked how he could be sure that Dr. Chivers would not be brought back into court or a complaint filed. Schad told him it was the chief of police who was handling the deal and that there was a four or five-way split. Schad stated that Dr. Chivers had been released immediately after McCain had talked to him the evening before. McCain asked Schad if he wanted to take the money in the booth and Schad suggested they go out to the parking lot. They went to Schad's car and there Sergeant McCain handed Schad the money which he counted and said was just right. Schad placed the money in an envelope and put it in his pocket. They then parted.
Deputy sheriffs observed Schad leaving the restaurant, followed him and placed him under arrest. When it was discovered that Schad did not have the money in his possession other deputy sheriffs were dispatched to arrest defendant Reilly. They took from the latter's possession twentyfive ten dollar bills which bore the same serial numbers as the bills given Schad by Sergeant McCain. The officers obtained Reilly's permission to put a recorder on his telephone. Sergeant Hallinen overheard Reilly's end of a conversation with appellant which ensued. A tape recording was made of the entire conversation, and it was stipulated that the transcription from that recording clearly reflects the conversation between Reilly and appellant. Because of the vital importance of this conversation portions of it are repeated here:
At approximately 5:30 p. m. on November 19 defendants Reilly and Schad were taken to the Dinnerhorn in custody and under surveillance where they went to work behind the bar. Prior to going there the $250 was again checked against the serial numbers and handed to Reilly in a blue envelope. At approximately 12:30 a. m. appellant walked up to the bar and engaged in a conversation with Reilly. The latter reached into his pocket and placed the envelope on the bar. Appellant with his left hand, palm down, removed the envelope from Reilly's hand and placed it in his left trousers pocket. The deputy sheriffs followed appellant out of the restaurant and into the parking lot where they identified themselves and told appellant that they would like to have the money he had just received. Appellant reached into his left trousers pocket and removed an envelope. He stated, 'I don't know what it is--someone just gave it to me,' and dropped it on the ground. It ws recovered. Appellant asserted in part, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hardeman
...of the defendant, assuming for the moment that they could, would not warrant a reversal. (Citation.)' (People v. Danielson (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 498, 506, 21 Cal.Rptr. 469, 474.) The order granting probation is affirmed insofar as it rests upon defendant's conviction of the offense charged ......
-
People v. Canard
...conduct in mutually carrying out the common illegal purpose, the existence of the conspiracy may be inferred. (People v. Danielson, 203 Cal.App.2d 498, 505, 21 Cal.Rptr. 469.) The circumstances here clearly indicate the existence of and the carrying out of a scheme to give protection to cer......
-
People v. Moore
...431, 6 Cal.Rptr. 161; People v. Casado, 181 Cal.App.2d 4, 4 Cal.Rptr. 851.) Thus we assume them to be correct. (People v. Danielson, 203 A.C.A. 545, 21 Cal.Rptr. 469.) Appellant claims he was denied the right to independent counsel. He says he was unaware of his right to counsel, the full n......
-
People v. Clifton
...by the court, and, in such circumstances, we must assume that the jury was correctly and properly instructed. (People v. Danielson, 203 Cal.App.2d 498, 508, 21 Cal.Rptr. 469; People v. Crawford, 105 Cal.App.2d 530, 537, 234 P.2d 181; People v. Winters, 242 A.C.A. 827, 832, 51 Cal.Rptr. 735.......