People v. Finkelstin

• Decision Date: 24 July 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 4427
• Citation: 220 P.2d 934,98 Cal.App.2d 545
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FINKELSTIN.

Page 934

220 P.2d 934

98 Cal.App.2d 545

PEOPLE v. FINKELSTIN.

Cr. 4427.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

July 24, 1950.

Hearing Denied Aug. 17, 1950.

Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Fred N. Howser, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Dep. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from a conviction of bribery. Since appellant demands a reversal on the ground that he was the victim of an entrapment, a detailed statement of the evidence is essential to a full understanding of all contentions.

At the time of the occurrences mentioned herein appellant was a citizen of Oxnard where he had resided for ten years and had operated a pawnship. William P. Clark was the chief of police of that city; Alfred Jewell was sergeant of police and Edward L. Stanton was a police detective. On June 30, 1949, appellant inquired of Stanton concerning one Macius who had been arrested on that day for an illegal sale of fireworks and promised the officer to make it worth his while if the latter would 'get the boy out and get the fireworks back.' July 2 the fireworks were returned to appellant when Stanton called to check the pawnshop books. While Stanton was in pursuit of such task, appellant walked by, inserted his hand in the detective's coat pocket, saying, 'thanks.' When Stanton protested that he did not 'want that,' the reply was, 'Oh, take it, there is more where that came from.' The gift was two ten-dollar bills which Stanton initialed, enclosed in an envelope and gave to the chief. While the detective was in the pawnshop on July 4 appellant asked him whether he had any idea how much money might be made in Oxnard if the police department would 'play ball.' On receiving a negative answer appellant said, 'About $4,000 for the chief, and he doesn't have to share that with anyone. * * * We could open four houses on Oxnard.' These, said appellant, would pay $500 apiece; could run 'with very little pressure, because 13 or 15 houses ran there in the old days.' Also, appellant said he would pay $750 a month to run a crap game and there were other angles where money could be made. When in answer to appellant's inquiry as to how the chief would regard the opening of such houses, the detective said he had no idea. Thereupon the shopkeeper said, 'Feel him out. * * * There is lots of money to be made and we are losing money by losing time.'

On July 5 the officer was again at the pawnshop. When appellant asked whether he had felt out the chief about opening up the town, Stanton stated that he had made some mention of the matter to his superior but was very doubtful whether he would allow houses of prostitution and as to the crap game he did not believe the chief would let his reputation go for $750 a month. 'Well,' said appellant, 'I can raise that ante to a thousand with the extra bonus when I have a good month and am making money. He is to have some of it too.' Appellant then expanded upon his plan to be willing to suffer an arrest occasionally to make it appear that the police department was performing its duty. 'Just * * * take me out; I won't mind * * * I will go over and pay a small fine; it is all a part of the overhead.' He knew he would not get a jail sentence; he could take care of the judge.

When Stanton called at appellant's home on July 6, appellant was eager to discuss matters with the chief to make final arrangements on the game inasmuch as he desired to go to New York to make arrangements for first class crap game handlers. Also, he said he had connections with a syndicate which would supply prostitutes for his houses to be opened in Oxnard; he had made a lot of money in the great metropolis where he had paid off all the officers; everybody got a little bit from $2 a day for the patrolman who walked the beat to $10 a day for the sergeant and everybody was happy; if the police had let him alone he could have made $10,000 on fireworks; he had made some money but not much because of police pressure; when Oxnard was running open all policemen ate steaks, but apparently not now. At appellant's request the officer drove him to the pawnshop where he was taken to the rear to see a supply of punchboards valued at $8000 which appellant had purchased and which would justify a tidy pay-off if allowed to operate.

When Stanton was at the pawnshop on July 7 appellant asked him for permission to install a punchboard in a specified cafe, and Stanton told him he would have to see the chief. In a conversation later on the same day Stanton told appellant that chief Clark had refused to assent to the installation of punchboards. It was at that time appellant telephoned to Judge Nelson at the city hall as follows: 'Hello, this is Charley; I would like to see you on some business; Okay, I will see you then.' He then told the detective that he would make more definite arrangements with the judge since Stanton seemed to be worried about it and then would advise the latter of the outcome.

When on July 11 Sergeant Jewell accompanied Stanton to the pawnshop, appellant approached the automobile of the officers and in referring to a visit of Jewell to Nevada said to the sergeant, 'Why didn't you wire me for some money if you needed some; you should have taken my Cadillac to start with to make the trip.' Stanton told appellant it was all right to speak in front of Jewell. After the officers had been invited into the pawnshop, appellant, addressing the sergeant said, 'Now that you are back we ought to get going because we are losing money by losing time; the business men of Oxnard would like to see the town opened up; I am not worried about anybody but Bill Clark and Whitey [Stanton] is working on him.' In answer to Jewell's inquiry appellant said there was $5000 a month to be made for the police department. As to City Manager Shannon, Judge Nelson would take care of him all right. 'I would like to talk with the Chief so we can make some final arrangements.'

Thereafter on the same day Stanton arranged with the chief to meet appellant and advised the latter that they would meet him about 9:00 o'clock p. m. After the two officers had called for appellant, they drove to the home of the chief. After the latter had seated himself beside Jewell, they cruised about the city. As they proceeded Clark said to appellant, 'Charlie, I understand you have something on your mind you would like to talk to me about.' Appellant replied, 'Well, I am ready to go,' and when asked for his meaning, continued, 'This is the way I believe it should be, that we start out easy by opening one house of prostitution and I am ready to lay $500 on the line for that opening. * * * The Juanita will be the first one to open and we can put the five hundred on the line right now.' When the chief replied that he would not open up for $500, appellant stated, 'Well, I can make it more.' Chief Clark answered, 'Give me some exact figure,' to which appellant replied, 'Well, there are three more houses at five hundred a piece, which will make it two thousand. My crap game should start in a week or ten days. It will take a little time to make arrangements and get handlers, but that will pay a thousand. There are the carnivals when they come to town will make extra money and the punchboards and burlesque shows.' To Clerk's inquiry as to what all this would amount to for him, appellant's reply was, 'About five thousand a month when we get going.' When the chief stated, 'I don't think we can talk any business; I am not interested in your $500 proposition' appellant said, 'Maybe I can put $3000 on the line but I will have to have some time to think it over.' After Clark replied, 'I don't think we can do any business' he directed Jewell to deposit their guest at his place. Later the same evening Stanton and Jewell met appellant as he emerged from the poolroom adjoining his pawnshop; they told him they believed they could not reach an agreement; they were sorry that the negotiations had started; appellant said, 'Well, I am not sorry. I am going to offer three thousand to him. I think the Chief will do business then.'

On July 12th appellant by telephone requested Stanton to call at his home. There he told Stanton and Jewell that he was 'ready to lay three thousand on the line' and desired another meeting with the chief. They told him to call their superior and make the engagement. That same evening there was a meeting in Chief Clark's office. The sergeant and the detective were both there accompanied by Jack Anderson, the desk operator. Ernest Arnold, a court reporter was in the closet of Clark's office as appellant entered. After waiting about 15 minutes appellant said, 'See you later' and departed. On July 13 in compliance with a message from appellant to Stanton the latter and Sergeant Jewell called at the pawnshop. Appellant said, 'I have the money; where can I locate the Chief?' Pursuant to Stanton's suggestion, he talked with Clark after which he announced, 'I have a meeting with him in ten minutes.' The two officers proceeded at once to the office of the chief where they found him and Captain Hinostro who was concealed in the locker. As appellant entered he said, 'I have got it,--three Gees.' Adressing him to chief said, 'Charlie, so that we understand each other, what is that for?' 'That,' said the pawnbroker, 'is for the houses and my crap game we talked about.' Thereupon Chief Clark took the money and said, 'Well, Charlie, you play your game and I will play mine. You are under arrest for bribery.' Stanton then enclosed the thirty $100 bills which were introduced at the trial along with the two ten-dollar bills given to him on July 2.

The foregoing recitals are a synopsis of the testimony of officer Stanton. It was corroborated in all essentials by Clark, Jewell and Hinostro. In addition, Judge Nelson testified that on July 7 appellant called him by telephone for an appointment. He was called again the following day...