People v. Lamb, Cr. 5274

Citation133 Cal.App.2d 179,283 P.2d 727
Decision Date23 May 1955
Docket NumberCr. 5274
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vincent Joseph LAMB, Defendant and Appellant.

Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was convicted of having forged a fictitious name on a bank check for the purpose of cheating a hotel and a bank, Penal Code, § 470, and of having committed grand theft by feloniously taking a diamond ring of the value of $1,500 from one Frank Alten. By this appeal, he seeks a reversal on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, errors in the conduct of the trial, and misdirection of the jury.

The Evidence is Sufficient

About one month prior to the events about to be narrated, appellant had been released from the Los Angeles County Jail where he had been confined for over two years pursuant to conviction for a misdemeanor. About the time of his departure from that institution, his wife, June Lamb, had made the acquaintance of one James G. Law who worked in a responsible position and also wrote dramatic productions. He and Mrs. Law invited appellant and his wife to dine with them at home on Christmas Day, 1953. Mrs. Lamb introduced her husband as having just arrived from Chicago. The latter stated that he was an agent and representative with headquarters in Chicago and was in Los Angeles to obtain a television show for a group who were in California. Law replied that he had spent his life in show business and 'was currently a freelance writer.' On the following day appellant returned to the Law home, examined some of Law's productions and departed with the promise that he might be interested in one entitled: 'The Crossword Puzzle of the Air,' hereinafter referred to as 'Crossword.' Some days subsequently, appellant returned and asked Law to rewrite and extend the Crossword. After he had made such revision, he delivered the script to appellant on January 4, 1954, in the belief that all appellant had said was true. By telephonic reports to Law appellant inspired him to believe he was a genuine agent of talent and success and finally on January 11 stated that he had sold the play, had a check 'for $2500 for a 30-day-option of the show'; that the sale price was $428,000--17 1/2 per cent of which 'would come to Law as creator of the show and that the option money should be divided between the two'; that Ken Murray had agreed to act as Master of Ceremonies in the show. He named other prominent persons with whom he pretended to have connections. Such communications were apparently continued until appellant finally made the acquaintance of Mr. Alten.

Appellant had no money as he stalked the streets of cities seeking a buyer for the Crossword. Late in the evening of early January 1954, Alten was assisting a friend who operated a bar in Pasadena. Appellant, accompanied by a woman whom he introduced as his wife, and himself as Mr. O'Shea, told Alten his wife had just arrived from Ireland; that he was an actor's agent; that he had a drama which he would likely sell to a friend. Alten inspected the document and said that he had a show that was good but believed the Crossword was better. Appellant told Alten that if he succeeded in selling his own, he might sell Alten's also. About 12:30 a. m., appellant returned to the bar with the same woman and informed Alten he had sold the Crossword and had been celebrating.

On January 21, appellant, representing himself as Mr. O'Shea, telephoned Alten and asked him to come at once to the Statler Hotel; stated they had placed the Crossword; that Ken Murray would be Master of Ceremonies and appellant would desire Alten to work with Murray as comic relief. Alten visited appellant at the hotel and was asked to read the Crossword; said that Alten's Irish dialect was impressive and would be the comic relief with Ken Murray; that he would have to be Alten's agent and that he would ask the producer for $1,000 a week as salary for Alten. Commencing with that interview, appellant continued throughout the day pretending they would visit Ken Murray at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel; stated that he was a guest at a large hotel; examined Alten's drama and the names of actors; pretended to be eager to employ certain actresses; offered to lend Alten $500 to buy better clothes; asked Alten to stop at any branch of his bank so that he might ascertain whether a draft he had received for the show had cleared; reported that the draft had been honored and there was money enough to pay the performers. By the time they reached the Alten home, Mr. Alten was convinced of the successful character of appellant. The latter continued his pretenses by dialing several numbers and conducting his conversations with pretended persons of high artistic rank. He pretended to employ Miss Ford and other girls at $250 a week for 39 weeks and asked them to meet him at a Glendale Studio for rehearsal on the morrow. He would take Alten to see Murray but for the fact that 'Ken was drunk and was negotiating with Bing Crosby Enterprises.'

As they left Alten's office, appellant asked Alten to find a person who would cash a check. He took appellant to a nearby liquor store and asked a Mr. Mitchell to cash the check which appellant wrote for $100. The merchant gave appellant $75 and promised the balance on the following day. Pursuant to appellant's request, Alten drove him to the Ambassador Hotel and to the Brown Derby where he said he had learned from his wife that his horses had lost and wished to check in at the Knicker-bocker under the name of Danny Walsh.

After appellant had done some telephoning he became involved in an argument with the clerk and stated that he had a client with him and complained that the hotel was embarrassing him and he would not stand for such treatment. Thereupon, appellant asked Alten for the loan of his $1,500 diamond ring so that he might 'put on a flash.' Alten loaned the ring, appellant dressed, adorned himself with the diamond, accompanied Alten to the desk clerk; protested the abuse of himself by the hotel's having cut off his long distance calls; threw down $25 on the desk but never returned the diamond to Alten. He induced Alten to lend him his watch also. By false promises and subterfuges and pretenses as to his business transactions and connections appellant kept Mr. and Mrs. Alten on his hook. He returned the watch to Mrs. Alten, but the diamond ring was never seen until the police recovered it from a pawnbroker to whom appellant had pledged it for a loan of $100. Although the check he gave Mr. Mitchell was worthless, appellant called and collected the balance of $25.

The People provided by a bank official that the Bank of America never had an account with Vincent O'Shea, the name appellant had affixed to the $100 check and that he had not made any arrangement for credit at such bank. Also, the witness McGinnis, room clerk at the Knickerbocker Hotel, testified that the check for $50 given by appellant as partial payment of his hotel bill was signed Vincent J. Walsh; that appellant then declared that it was good. But an officer of the branch bank on which it was drawn testified that his branch at 160 East Colorado Street had never had an account with Vincent J Walsh and that there was no branch of the Bank of America at 130 East Colorado.

Contrary to the statements of appellant made to Law and Alten, competent witnesses testified that appellant was unknown to Ken Murray and had not talked with him over the telephone concerning the Crossword; that attorney Bautzer had never been retained by appellant for a program known as The Crossword Puzzle of the Air. In fact, the representations of appellant that he was an actor's agent just arrived from Chicago; that he had sold the Crossword for $428,000, of Law's getting 17 1/2 per cent thereof; of appellant's receipt of $2,500 for a 30-day option, of Law's getting one half of same, were, so far as evidence is concerned nothing more than the ravings of a man in a delirium. None of it was proved to be true. Withal, appellant at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • People v. Powers
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 1967
    ...38 Cal.Rptr. 884, 392 P.2d 964; People v. Thomas, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 131--132, 23 Cal.Rptr. 161, 373 P.2d 97; People v. Lamb, 133 Cal.App.2d 179, 185, 283 P.2d 727). It is equally true that the right to represent oneself may not be used for such The power and duty of the trial court in......
  • People v. Grey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1960
    ...of the trial court and must be supported by a showing of due diligence to obtain the attendance of the witness. People v. Lamb, 133 Cal.App.2d 179, 283 P.2d 727; People v. Carroll, 160 cal.App.2d 6, 324 P.2d 713. In People v. Collins, 195 Cal. 325, 333, 233 P. 97, 100, the Supreme Court sai......
  • People v. $17,522.08 United States Currency
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 2006
    ...by counsel. (Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust etc. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209, 289 P.2d 823; People v. Lamb (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 179, 185, 283 P.2d 727.) All parties have an affirmative duty to timely assert their rights in order to avoid a finding that they waived or forfeited......
  • People v. Hanz
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1961
    ...649); and a request therefor must be supported by a showing of due diligence in an attempt to secure his attendance (People v. Lamb, 133 Cal.App.2d 179, 283 P.2d 727; People v. Carroll, 160 Cal.App.2d 6, 324 P.2d 713) by legal means (People v. Collins, 195 Cal. 325, 233 P. 97; People v. Gre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT