People v. Goodall

• Decision Date: 16 May 1951
• Docket Number: Cr. 829
• Citation: 104 Cal.App.2d 242,231 P.2d 119
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GOODALL et al.

Page 119

231 P.2d 119

104 Cal.App.2d 242

PEOPLE v. GOODALL et al.

Cr. 829.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

May 16, 1951.

J. M. Lopes, Visalia, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Stanford, D. Herlick, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Justice.

Defendants were convicted by a jury of the offense of burglary of a building occupied by the Tulare-Kings Counties Trades Council, in Visalia, on the night of July 28, 1950. Defendant Goodall admitted a prior conviction of burglary.

The Trades Council building was partitioned into three sections. The front section was a waiting room containing a desk and chairs. The middle section was the business office, which contained a safe measuring 22X23X33 inches, and weighing about 420 pounds, in which had been left $97.00 in cash and money orders and some 1949 Union dues 'stamps' similar to small postage stamps. The third section was a meeting hall.

Shortly before the burglary, the defendant Goodall joined a Trades Council Union. On the night of July 28th at about 10 p. m. Goodall and defendant Dean drove to the front of the building, inquired as to where a certain union meeting was being held, entered the front office, looked around, and after a while they drove away in Goodall's 1938 maroon-colored convertible Ford. The hall doors were locked about 10:15 p. m. The next morning, upon entering the office, one of the union officials saw broken glass from a window, a door had been pried open, the safe removed and track marks on the floor indicated something heavy had been removed through the back door. Immediately outside the rear door, near the alley, were automobile tire-track marks indicating a car had been backed up to the door. A photographer took photographs of the tire marks made by the right and left rear tires.

Goodall was awakened at his home, arrested, and ordered to drive the officer in his 1938 maroon-colored convertible Ford to a parking lot near the police station. Photographs were taken of it as well as the left and right rear tire-mark impressions that were made on white paper. Under the front seat two chisels were found. On the seat was a folded blanket and, when unfolded, six loose union 'stamps', similar to those left in the safe, were found. Some foreign grayish paint was adhering to the bottom part of the trunk of the car and a sample was taken. Weeds were removed from the undercarriage of it. There was a small cardboard box of tools in the trunk. There was evidence of two indentation markings on the lid of the turtleback about 22 or 23 inches apart, evidently made by a sharp-cornered object. Samples were taken of the dirt found on the front-seat floor boards as well as on the floor of the trunk. All of these exhibits were forwarded to the F.B.I. laboratory for analysis.

When Goodall was arrested, a probation officer, was was at the police station, recognized him. Goodall pretended he did not know the probation officer who had been previously informed about the case. He asked Goodall 'if he was guilty' and Goodall said: 'Well, ask Floyd (the arresting officer). He knows.' He then asked Goodall why he did not 'cop out' (plead guilty) and get it over with and Goodall said 'Why should I? I know all about the safe, but I am going to have some fun out of this.'

In the conversation with the chief of police and others, Goodall was asked to tell of his whereabouts and movements on the night of July 28th. He stated he was out with defendant Dean, drove to Tulare in the above-mentioned Ford, and returned to Dean's home about 11 p.m., played some cards until 2 a. m. and then they decided to go fishing; that they went to one Mitchell's house, awakened him, and borrowed his equipment and drove out to the 'East Fork' near a bridge; that it was about daylight at that time and they decided they did not want to fish so they turned back and went to their respective homes to bed.

Defendant Dean was apprehended and asked the same questions. His story was substantially the same as Goodall's except he stated that when they arrived at Mitchell's home about 1:30 a. m. Mitchell was not interested in going fishing so they all sat around and played cards until 3 a. m. and they then returned home.

He was specifically asked if they went fishing and he said that they talked about it but did not go. Dean asked what punishment he could expect if he were implicated and that the chief told him that he was in no position to make any promises; that it was strictly up to the court, but in view of the fact that he had no previous record he might be able to get probation; that the offense could be punishable by a jail sentence. The chief then went to the outer office, obtained a copy of the Penal Code, opened it to the section on burglary and let him read the section, which he did. Later, when confronted with the discrepancies in their two stories about fishing, Goodall stated: 'If Dean said we went fishing, I must have gone by myself.' Neither defendant ever mentioned about going to the Trade Council's office that evening.

In Goodall's billfold was a combination of numbers written upon a paper which might well indicate that they constituted a combination to a safe. He was questioned about these figures and he stated: 'That is no safe combination'; that someone had written it out and gave it to him; that he did not know who it was. Also found on him was a drawing or diagram of a building resembling, to some extent, the arrangement of the Trades Council building. When asked what it was he stated he did not know, but 'some guy' drew it and gave it to him.

On July 30th two hunters found the battered safe under a bridge two miles east of Visalia. The bottom of the safe had been torn open and a peculiar form of cement used therein had been crumbled and was exposed to observation. Samples of the cement and paint on the safe were taken. The contents of the safe were missing. Several of the '1949 Union stamps' were scattered about. Faint tire marks indicated a car had been driven to that point. Scratches were noticed on the railing of the concrete bridge and marks indicated the safe had been dragged under it. The safe was brought to the court and admitted in evidence as an exhibit.

Two FBI investigators, assigned to the laboratories at Washington, D. C., after qualifying as experts, testified and gave as their opinions that the chisel found in the Ford fitted perfectly into an indentation made in the safe insulation cement; that the cement particles found on the chisel were of the same peculiar texture as that found in the safe; that the tire marks of the left and right rear tires in the photographs were the same as the photgraphs of the tire marks of the car made at the Trades Council building; that the foreign paint found in the trunk of the car had the same metallic composition and color as the paint from the safe and that the particles of paint found on the front and trunk floor boards were comparable to particles of the cement insulation found in the safe.

The defendant Goodall, in testifying in hiw own behalf, admitted his previous conviction of a felony and said he sat at the Mitchell house until 3:30 that night, did not go out to the bridge of fish but only talked about it. When asked why he did not mention about going to the Trades Council building that evening he said: 'It was just a minor thing, I never even thought about it. I was only there three or four minutes and was gone.' He stated the paper found was not a combination to a safe but was probably some figures he took or made in connection with his work with the gas company, such as 'property measurements'. He said the chisels found in his car were some he used in connection with his work. He denied the conversation claimed to have been related to the probation officer, denied any knowledge of or participation in the crime and produced his relative witnesses indicating he was home at the hours indicated and was at Mitchell's home until about 3:30 a. m.

Defendant Dean related about the same story, denied he knew anything about the crime, denied the conversation with the chief or seeing the Penal Code, and produced relative witnesses (the Mitchells) corroborating his story about being at their home at the hours indicated by Dean.

Defendants first question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. They do not question the fact that a burglary was proved. It is their contention that the evidence upon which their convictions were based was all circumstantial and was insufficient to convict them of the charge.

A finding of guilty may be based upon circumstantial evidence. People v. Mercer, 103 Cal.App.2d 462, 229 P.2d 411; People v. Mercer, 103 Cal.App.2d 782, 230 P.2d 4; People v. Green, 13 Cal.2d...