People v. Murdock

• Decision Date: 19 August 1960
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willard E. MURDOCK, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 7005.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 293

7 Cal.Rptr. 293

183 Cal.App.2d 861

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willard E. MURDOCK, Defendant and Appellant.

Crim. 7005.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Aug. 19, 1960.

Simmons & Simmons and Herbet W. Simmons, Jr., Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deput Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FORD, Justice.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of grand theft (Penal Code, § 487, subdiv. 1) and from a denial of his motion for a new trial. The judgment was pursuant to the verdict of a jury. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed by law.

_ In addition to the contention that there were errors in rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Keeping in mind that on this appeal the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778; People v. Carnavacci, 119 Cal.App.2d 14, 16, 258 P.2d 1121; People v. Renek, 105 Cal.App.2d 277, 281, 233 P.2d 43; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434, 101 P.2d 527), a summary of the evidence which gives support to the determination of the jury will be stated so that its sufficiency can be evaluated. Reference will also be made to certain testimony of the defendant.

_ Albert Carter had been working for a masonry contractor who owed him $375 in wages. On February 12, 1959, he went to the union hall for the purpose of obtaining an extension of time for the payment of his dues. While Carter was talking to another man, the defendant joined in the conversation. The defendant then telephoned Carter's employer and told him they were coming right over to collect the $375. Carter thought that the defendant was a business agent of the union. The defendant told Carter that he was supposed to collect the money. After conversation between the defendant and the employer at the latter's home, at which time the defendant insisted that Carter be paid in cash rather than by check, they went to the bank. There the employer obtained $375 in cash and handed it to Carter. Carter testified as to what then occurred as follows: 'Well, I was sitting in the back seat [of defendant's automobile] and he paid me $375 and the defendant said--reached back, he said, 'Give me that money,' he said. He said, 'This is not in your care. This is out of your hands. I told you to keep your mouth shut. It's out of your charge. It's got to be presented through the downtown office and it will be presented to you from there.'' Carter did not hand him the money but the defendant reached back and grabbed it out of his hands. Thereafter, a number of times Carter asked for the money but the defendant told him to keep his mouth shut.

Then they went to the main office of the union. The defendant told Carter to sit in the lobby and that he was going upstairs. Carter did not see the defendant again for about two hours. The defendant came back to the lobby. Later the president called Carter into his office and sent for the defendant. The president asked for the money so that it could be returned to Carter but the defendant did not return the money. The defendant said that Carter had made a loan of the money to him but Carter denied it. Carter returned to the lobby and waited. Carter again asked for his money and the defendant said, 'I've got a deal working.' Carter went to see the president again and he called the defendant into his office. Again there was a claim of a loan and a denial. The defendant left the room and was arrested by the police on another charge. Carter followed the defendant to the police station.

M. E. Buckner, a police officer, testified that certain statements were made by the defendant at the police station. In the course thereof, the defendant said that he had informed the president of the union that he had obtained Carter's money for him from his employer but the president did not like it and told him that that was not within his duties as a dispatcher. The president then told him that he wanted him to bring his account of dues which he had collected up to date. The amount was $875 and he was short $375 at the time. So he used Carter's money for that purpose. He further stated that if he had not been arrested he would have collected about $150 in dues at the windown in the office and would have borrowed the rest of the money from one of the other dispatchers. The officer testified that at the time of the arrest, which arrest was on a traffic charge, the defendant appeared to be collecting dues at a window in the office. There was a tape recording of the defendant's statements.

The defendant testified on his own behalf. In substance, he testified that at the main union office he asked Carter to lend him the $375 so that he could account to the union as directed by the president and that Carter said that he would on the understanding that he would be repaid later that day.

The evidence submitted by the prosecution amply supported the verdict. The nuture of the charge of theft under the Penal Code is succinctly stated in People v. Martin, 153 Cal.App.2d 275, at pages 281-282, 314 P.2d 493, at page 497: 'Theft is characterized as the felonious taking of property which is not one's own. Pen.Code, § 484; People v. Moorehead, 104 Cal.App.2d 688, 232 P.2d 268. Since the amendment in 1927 to section 484 of the Penal Code, an accused may be convicted of grand theft upon proof showing either larceny, embezzlement or obtaining money by false pretenses (People v. Cannon, 77 Cal.App.2d 678, 688-689, 176 P.2d 409), and it is unnecessary to specify in the accusatory pleading the kind of grand theft with which the defendant is charged. People v. Brock, 21 Cal.App.2d 601, 70 P.2d 210. Embezzlement is the fraudulent misappropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted. Pen.Code, § 503.'

_ It is immaterial whether the defendant formed an intent to use Carter's money for his own purposes before or after he obtained possession of it. In either case, there was grand theft. The reasoning found on page 284 of the Martin opinion is pertinent: 'Where criminal acts may constitute several forms of theft, depending upon how the evidence is viewed by the court, a judgment of conviction can be sustained upon evidence of any form of the offense. People v. Corenevsky, 124 Cal.App.2d 19, 24, 267 P.2d 1048, and cases cited. If the court believed that a criminal intent was formed before defendant obtained the machines, the conviction was proper upon the theory of larceny by trick and device. People v. Mason, 86 Cal.App.2d 445, 452-453, 195 P.2d 60. If the court believed that defendant did not form an intention to defraud Teague until after he obtained the machines, it could find him guilty of embezzlement. People v. Walker, 144 Cal. 1, 77 P. 705; People v. Fewkes, 214 Cal. 142, 4 P.2d 538. Under either theory, the conviction of grand theft is supported by the evidence.'

_ The appellant would have this court reweigh the evidence and accept his testimony that there was a loan to him by Carter. This we cannot do under well-established principles relating to appellate review. People v. Carnavacci, supra, 119 Cal.App.2d 14, 16, 258 P.2d 1121.

_ The witness Carter was cross-examined with respect to his testimony to the effect that the defendant had demanded that the employer pay the amount due Carter in cash rather than by check. In an attempt to impeach him, his attention was directed to a portion of his testimony at the preliminary examination. Thereafter, counsel for the defendant requested that a copy be made of the portion of the transcript so used and that it be received in evidence as defendant's exhibit. The court denied the request. There was clearly no error. The usual method of questioning the witness as to prior testimony claimed to be inconsistent with his present testimony had been pursued and the contents of that portion of the transcript were already in the record as a part of such inquiry.

_ During the course of the cross-examination of Carter, he was asked, in substance, whether he was familiar with the provision of the contract between the union and Carter's employer as to the payment of employees 'every five working days.' The objection was made that Carter's knowledge thereof was immaterial. Before a ruling was made, Carter answered, 'I wasn't.' The objection was sustained. In his brief on appeal, the defendant states: 'The question was asked for the purpose of proving by the testimony of the complaining witness that it was part of the duties of the defendant to make the collection from * * * the contractor on behalf of the complaining witness, Albert Carter. One of the main points involved in the whole case was whether or not defendant had this as part of his ordinary duties or whether or not he was in direct violation of his duties.' There was no error. Apart from the fact that the witness had already said that he did not know of the provision, to thus establish the contents of the contract (which counsel desired to show as a basis for a claim of the existence of a duty) would be in violation of the best evidence rule. People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540, 557, 297 P.2d 999; People v. Guasti, 110 Cal.App.2d 456, 462-463, 243 P.2d 59.

_...