People v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 21 August 1970
• Docket Number: Cr. 3926
• Citation: 89 Cal.Rptr. 268,10 Cal.App.3d 712
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harold JENNINGS, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Page 268

89 Cal.Rptr. 268

10 Cal.App.3d 712

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harold JENNINGS, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3926.

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

Aug. 21, 1970.

[10 Cal.App.3d 713] Howard J. Bechefsky, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Pierpont M. Laidley, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

COUGHLIN, Associate Justice.

Defendant appeals his conviction of the offense of receiving stolen property, a violation of Section 496, subdivision (1) of the Penal Code.

On December 16, 1969, in Los Angeles, defendant was driving a Buick automobile that had been stolen in San Diego on December 6, 1969; was stopped by the police and arrested; was charged by an information filed in San Diego County with the offenses of grand theft, and of receiving stolen property in that he 'did receive, conceal and withhold from the owner thereof certain property, which had been stolen, knowing the same to have been stolen'; was found not guilty of the offense of grand theft and was found guilty of the offense of receiving stolen property 'as charged' in the information.

On appeal, defendant contends the evidence is not sufficient to establish the venue of the offense was in San Diego County, and cites People v. Baca, 34 Cal.App.2d 284, 287, 93 P.2d 174, in support of this position. In the cited case the defendant was tried in Los Angeles County for receiving property stolen in that county which was in his possession two years later in Colorado, where he was arrested; there was no evidence he had possession of the stolen property other than in Colorado; and the court held the evidence did not support venue of the crime in Los Angeles, stating:

'A careful review of the record reveals neither direct evidence of the venue of the alleged crime in Los Angeles County, Nor evidence of any fact from which it can reasonably be inferred that defendant received possession, Or ever had possession of the stolen property, on or about November 10, 1936, or at any other time, In said county. That there is evidence to support the conclusion that defendant knowingly had possession of such property elsewhere, there can be no question, but such evidence, in the light of the record, raises no more than a suspicion that the property in question was possessed by defendant in Los Angeles County. Such a showing is insufficient.' (Italics ours.)

As indicated in the cited case, venue may be established by circumstantial evidence. (See also People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252, 262, 282 P.2d 53; People v. Harris, 163 Cal.App.2d 470, 473, 329 P.2d 557; People v. Boyden, 116 Cal.App.2d 278, 287, 253 P.2d 773.) Also, as indicated in the cited case, proof of venue of the offense of...