People v. Marks, Cr. 4763
| Citation | 244 P.2d 771,111 Cal.App.2d 357 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4763 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MARKS et al. |
Matthews & Bowler and Robert P. Dockeray, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Bastone was convicted by the court without a jury of a violation of subdivision 4 of section 337a of the Penal Code, registering bets on the results of horse races or purported horse races. He was sentenced to the county jail, the sentence suspended, and he was granted probation. He appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The only error assigned is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.
On June 13, 1951, two police officers were admitted to a residence in Los Angeles by one Marks. A few minutes later defendant approached the front door; he was met by Mrs. Marks who had a conversation with him. Defendant then turned to leave the house. As he did so he was overtaken by one of the officers who identified himself. The two officers took defendant to his automobile which was parked across the street. A racing form for that day was found in the back seat of the car. Defendant was taken into the Marks' house and there required to remove the contents of his pockets. He removed sixteen small pieces of paper.
The pieces of paper were betting markers and owe sheets and were all in defendant's handwriting. Each piece of paper bore initials which indicated the name of a better, numerals indicating the date, the number of a horse race, the number of a horse, the amount bet on the horse, and the amount the horse paid to win, place, or show. Some of the pieces of paper also bore numerals showing the amount won or lost by betters.
When defendant removed the pieces of paper from his pocket an officer asked him what they were. He said they were his selections of horses. When asked what the initials were he said they indicated a type of system he used. He was asked to explain the system. He said he could if he had a racing form. He was given a racing form and said, 'Well, I can see that you guys aren't going to believe me, so I am not going to say any more.'
An expert testified that a person in possession of owe sheets is known as an agent of a bookmaker: he takes bets and collects from and pays betters.
Defendant did not testify or offer any evidence in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grey
...judicial confession of the offense charged against defendant. People v. Gibson, 154 Cal.App.2d 67, 72, 315 P.2d 442; People v. Marks, 111 Cal.App.2d 357, 359, 244 P.2d 771; People v. Mackie, 156 Cal.App.2d 465, 467, 319 P.2d 382. If the testimony of a witness is contradictory, the jury must......
-
People v. McGraw
...by the testimony of Brown. The cases cited by appellant, namely People v. Coppla, 100 Cal.App.2d 766, 224 P.2d 828; People v. Marks, 111 Cal.App.2d 357, 244 P.2d 771 and People v. Zanes, 116 Cal.App.2d 765, 254 P.2d 176, have to do with extrajudicial statement of a defendant and are not in ......
-
People v. Zanes, Cr. 2844
...The qualification which we have emphasized in this quotation is satisfied in this case as we have pointed out above. People v. Marks, 111 Cal.App.2d 357, 359, 244 P.2d 771. Appellant's claim of entrapment will not stand up under the settled rule that where the defendant would have committed......
-
People v. Martina, Cr. 3110
...v. Toledo, 85 Cal.App.2d 577, 581, 193 P.2d 953; see also People v. Coppla, 100 Cal.App.2d 766, 769, 224 P.2d 828; People v. Marks, 111 Cal.App.2d 357, 359, 244 P.2d 771; and such statements may be contradicted by circumstantial evidence alone. People v. Shellenberger, 25 Cal.App.2d 402, 77......