People v. Hassen

• Decision Date: 05 September 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5545
• Citation: 301 P.2d 80,144 Cal.App.2d 334
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Erwin E. HASSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 80

301 P.2d 80

144 Cal.App.2d 334

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Erwin E. HASSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5545.

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

Sept. 5, 1956.

Jerry Giesler, Robert A. Neeb, Jr., Beverly Hills, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James L. Mamakos, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, containing six counts, defendant was accused as follows: (1) Court I--the crime of Grand Theft in violation of Section 487, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code, a felony, in that on or about August 4, 1954, at or in the County of Los Angeles, the defendant did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take a certified check of the value of $5,400, which was the personal property of Zenith National Insurance Company; (2) Counts II, III, IV and V--the crimes of Forgery in violation of Section 470 of the Penal Code, a felony, in that on or about June 7, 1954, August 16, 1954, September 10, 1954, October 8, 1954, at or in the County of Los Angeles, the defendant, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud M. A. Showers, Morris Miller and Frank Fishman, did wilfully, unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously make, alter, forge and counterfeit a certain receipt on each of the above dates in writing, for the payment of money, each in the sum of $5,407.20, and did then and there utter, publish and pass the same, knowing that said receipt was false, altered, forged and counterfeited, as aforesaid, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud the said M. A. Showers, Morris Miller and Frank Fishman; (3) Count VI--the crime of Forgery in violation of Section 470 of the Penal Code, a felony, in that on or about September 8, 1954, at or in the County of Los Angeles, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud Morris Miller and Bank of America National Trust and Savings, a corporation, did wilfully, unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously make, alter, forge and counterfeit a certain Beneficiary's Statement, dated September 8, 1954, in connection with the Bank of America, Beverly-Wilshire Branch, Escrow No. 213-7141, and did then and there utter, publish and pass the same, knowing that said Beneficiary's Statement was false, altered, forged and counterfeited, as aforesaid, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud the said Morris Miller and Bank of America National Trust and Savings, a corporation, and M. A. Showers.

The defendant was arraigned, made a motion under Section 995, Penal Code, which the court granted as to Count I and denied as to the other counts, and he then entered his plea of 'Not Guilty'.

The cause was called for trial and a jury was selected and sworn. Pursuant to stipulation of counsel and the defendant personally consenting, trial by jury was waived and the jury was discharged.

By stipulation of counsel, and the defendant personally consenting, the evidence received by the court and jury was submitted to the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant on Count V only. As to the remaining counts, II, III, IV and VI, the court declared a mistrial pursuant to stipulation of counsel. Thereafter, these latter counts were dismissed.

Defendant was found guilty of forgery as charged in Count V of the information. Motion for a new trial was denied and defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the County Jail for the term of one year. Execution of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted conditional probation.

From the order denying his motion for a new trial and from 'the verdict', defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The following will serve as an epitome of the evidence relating to Count V only (on which count alone defendant was convicted).

Four trust deeds came into existence relating to property on the corner of Rossmore and Rosewood Streets in Los Angeles.

The defendant was the last purchaser of this property and bought it on February 27, 1953.

On January 29, 1954, the Guarantee Mutual Life Company, holder of the first trust deed, sold the first trust deed to Zenith National Insurance Company. Up to and including January 4, 1954, the Hassen family, Erwin E. Hassen Foundation and Hassen Hospitals, Inc., were the only stockholders of Zenith Company.

After purchasing the property, the defendant stated to Mr. Morris Miller, a shareholder of the Country Club Villa Corporation, and holder of the second trust deed on the above property, that he could not make the payments on the first trust deed. Thereafter, the defendant and Miller had a number of conversations concerning payments on the three trust deeds, and later Miller filed an action against the defendant in August, 1953. This suit was settled and part of the settlement provided that the defendant shall pay the amounts which become due on the first trust deed and thereafter provide Miller with a receipt of such payment within ten days after such payment accrued.

Count V charges the defendant with having forged the name of M. A. Showers, cashier of Zenith National Insurance Company, on a receipt of the Zenith Company, showing that the October payment on the first trust deed was made. The defendant conveyed this receipt to Miller who believed that this receipt represented that the October payment on the first trust deed was in fact made.

Mrs. Cornwell, cashier of Zenith Company, who was M. A. Showers prior to her marriage and signed documents of the Zenith Company with her signature 'Mary Ann Showers' or 'M. A. Showers' testified that she did not sign the October corporate receipt, nor did she authorize any one any time to sign her name to that document, nor did she at any time receive $5,407.20 described in that document.

The records of Zenith Company revealed that no principal payments had been made on the first trust deed after March 1, 1954. People's Exhibit No. 8 represented a principal and interest payment on the first trust deed.

Mr. Miller discovered that the October corporate receipt, People's Exhibit No. 8, was not valid in November, 1954. Subsequently, the defendant admitted to Miller that he had given him an invalid receipt and described how he had copied the signature of 'M. A. Showers' thereon. At a later meeting between Miller and the defendant, the defendant tried to 'grab' an envelope in Miller's possession which contained a photostatic copy of the October corporate receipt which the defendant had given him.

As his first and main ground for reversal of the judgment and order in the instant case appellant earnestly contends that proof of the corpus delicti of the crime of forgery charged in Count V was lacking. In this regard appellant relies on the claim that in a forgery prosecution it must be shown that the instrument was false and that this is not proven until it is shown that the person who signed another's name did so without authority. People v. Whiteman, 114 Cal. 338, 344, 46 P. 99. That the only manner in which the prosecution could show lack of authority in this case would be to show that the Zenith Insurance Corporation itself gave no authority for the receipt here in question to be issued and that this required the prosecution to produce all of the minutes and by-laws of the corporation dealing with authority to act for the corporation, or to have shown by a complete set of minutes and by-laws what persons were authorized to do certain acts in behalf of the corporate entity. Corporations Code, section 832; People v. Hidalgo, 134 Cal.App. 293, 294, 25 P.2d 270. Appellant argues that the necessity for such proof assumes importance in this case because the corporation was admittedly a closely knit family corporation, founded by defendant and controlled by him and his family.

While it is true, as contended by appellant, that it is a well established doctrine that no person can be convicted of a crime on extra-judicial admissions alone and that the corpus delicti must be proven independent of admissions, we are satisfied that the evidence, leaving entirely out of consideration the statements and admissions of appellant, sufficiently proves the corpus delicti. Proof of the corpus delicti does not necessarily involve or require proof that the crime charged was committed by the accused, People v. Cowan, 38 Cal.App.2d 231, 240, 101 P.2d 125; People v. Cowling, 6 Cal.App.2d 466, 471, 44 P.2d 441; People v. Wilt, 40 Cal.App.2d 124, 127, 104 P.2d 387; People v. Shapiro, 40 Cal.App.2d 321, 323, 104 P.2d 688; People v. Flores, 34 Cal.App. 393, 394, 167 P. 413, and it is well settled that the prosecution is not required to establish it by proof to the same degree of certainty as is required to establish the fact of guilt. Slight or prima facie proof is all that is necessary. It may also be proved by circumstances shown in evidence, or by inferences reasonably drawn therefrom; direct or positive evidence is not essential. When a prima facie case is presented that a crime was committed the evidence is sufficient. People v. Hudson, 139 Cal.App. 543, 544, 34 P.2d 741; People v. Clark, 70 Cal.App. 531, 544, 233 P. 980; People v. Wiezel, 39 Cal.App.2d 657, 664, 104 P.2d 70; People v. Van Scoyoc, 25 Cal.App.2d 416, 418, 77 P.2d 485; People v. Seymour, 54 Cal.App.2d 266, 275, 128 P.2d 726.

With the foregoing rules is mind the record reveals that there was before the court evidence that:

(1) After the appellant purchased the Casa Blanca Hotel (Rossmore and Rosewood Streets), thereby becoming obligated to make payments on the four trust deeds on that property, he became delinquent in his payments. This led to a suit by Miller, holder of the second trust deed, which was settled on condition that the appellant supply Miller with receipts of payments on the first trust deed within 10 days after they accrued.

(2) In October, 1954, appellant gave to Miller a receipt from Zenith National Insurance Company, holder of...