People v. Moulton

Decision Date12 December 1962
Docket NumberCr. 4111
Citation27 Cal.Rptr. 132,210 Cal.App.2d 673
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dennis Leroy MOULTON, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Lester W. Blodgett, San Jose, for appellant (under appointment of the District Court of Appeal).

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, Robert R. Granucci, Joseph I. Kelly, Deputies Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

KAUFMAN, Presiding Justice.

Dennis Leroy Moulton and his brother, Larry, were found guilty by a jury of two counts of burglary in the second degree. Dennis alone appeals and contends that the trial court erred in the introduction of certain evidence and that the district attorney committed prejudicial misconduct. There is no merit in either of these contentions.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must on appeal from a jury verdict, it appears that about noon on Saturday, September 30, 1961, the appellant and his brothers, Larry and Mickey, went to Brady's Repair Shop just north of Crescent City in Del Norte County. Mr. Brady left about 12:30 p. m. before all of the repair work on Dennis' black and white D.K.W. was finished. Mr. Brady's son, Jim, and Mickey finished the work on the appellant's car; then Jim Brady put all the tools away, locked the shop and left at the same time as the appellant and his brothers, about 1:00 p. m. When Mr. Brady returned to his shop on Monday morning [October 2], he found that one of the windows had been broken and certain tools were scattered about the floor. Mr. Brady had been there for only a few minutes when Deputy Sheriff Black came in with some items and asked Mr. Brady whether they belonged to the shop. Mr. Brady identified a pair of tin snips, a sledge hammer, a ball peen hammer, a screw driver, a punch, as well as an iron bar, which he had taken out of Dewey Hansen's mowing machine the year before.

The deputy sheriff indicated that one screw driver, the sledge hammer, the punch and iron bar had been found on the floor of the Del Norte Ice and Cold Storage plant early Sunday morning in the investigation of a burglary, and the rest in the trunk of the appellant's car. Later the same day, when Mr. Brady's bookkeeper came in, she discovered that the check protector was also missing. Mr. Brady notified the sheriff's office, and the missing check protector was subsequently found underneath the seat of a vehicle parked in the appellant's backyard.

About 11:30 on the evening of September 30, 1961, Mr. Viggo Hoyer, a private patrol operator, in the course of his duties, was checking the doors of the Del Norte Ice and Cold Storage plant south of Crescent City. He found one of the plant doors opened, entered and discovered someone had tampered with the safe. There was a warm acetylene torch and several tools on the floor, as well as insulation clay from the safe. He observed a small black and white foreign car outside the plant with its radiator warm and some tools in the open trunk. He immediately informed the deputy sheriff of what he had seen. Deputy Sheriff Butters arrived shortly thereafter and parked about 50 feet from the loading dock of the plant. He also saw the small black and white foreign car, lifted the open trunk lid and found a pair of tin snips, a ball peen hammer and a screw driver and informed Undersheriff Smallwood of what he had seen.

Undersheriff Smallwood noticed that the car was the only one in the area without frost on its windshield and that the motor was warm. As he found no registration slip on the steering post, he entered the car, opened the glove compartment and found a letter addressed to the appellant. He then proceeded to the appellant's home and asked his wife to have her husband contact him when he returned. The appellant's wife stated the appellant had gone downtown with his brother in his small black and white car. Undersheriff Smallwood remained in the vicinity of the Moulton house and waited until the appellant and his brother arrived in a cab. After talking with the cab driver and ascertaining that the driver had picked up the appellant and his brother at a service station across from the ice plant, he entered the house and arrested the appellant and his brother, Larry. The appellant and Larry had fire clay on their shoes identical to the insulation clay from the damaged safe at the ice plant.

The appellant and his brother told conflicting stories as to how the car happened to be in the area next to the ice plant. The appellant indicated that his car would not run at all. Subsequently, Undersheriff Smallwood found that the car operated without any difficulty or noise except for the reverse gear. The next morning, Sunday, October 1, Undersheriff Smallwood searched the trunk of the car and found the above mentioned tools and instructed his deputy to take them around to the various auto repair shops the first thing Monday morning to see if they could be identified.

The appellant and his brother, Larry, testified that Jim Brady had left the tools found in the car on the ground after locking the shop, and that they put the tools into their car and asked their younger brother, Mickey, who knew the Bradys, to return them. The appellant further testified that on the evening of September 30, they parked the car near the ice plant about 11:30 p. m. because it would not run and went to look for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Webb
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Julio 1966
    ...Cedeno, supra, 218 Cal.App.2d p. 218, 32 Cal.Rptr. 246; People v. Gilmore, 211 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 27 Cal.Rptr. 59; People v. Moulton, 210 Cal.App.2d 673, 676, 27 Cal.Rptr. 132.) Defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's opinion in Burke prohibits a search of an arrestee's automobile i......
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 1 Julio 1965
    ...authority supporting the legality of searches of nearby automobiles reasonably related to an arrest is found in People v. Moulton, 210 Cal.App.2d 673, 27 Cal.Rptr. 132; People v. Burke, 208 Cal.App.2d 149, 24 Cal.Rptr. 912 (hearing by Supreme Court denied); and People v. Daily, 157 Cal.App.......
  • People v. Finn
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 1965
    ...and no objection is made to the evidence in the trial court, it will be presumed that the seizure was lawful. (People v. Moulton, 210 Cal.App.2d 673, 27 Cal.Rptr. 132; People v. Jaquish, 170 Cal.App.2d 376, 338 P.2d 974.) Defendant next argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove his ......
  • People v. Superior Court, Contra Costa County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Agosto 1968
    ...v. Superior Court etc., 250 Cal.App.2d 695, 58 Cal.Rptr. 635; People v. Demes, 220 Cal.App.2d 423, 33 Cal.Rptr. 896; People v. Moulton, 210 Cal.App.2d 673, 27 Cal.Rptr. 132; People v. Molarius, 213 Cal.App.2d 10, 28 Cal.Rptr. 541; People v. Simons, 208 Cal.App.2d 83, 25 Cal.Rptr. 57; People......

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