People v. Ramirez

• Decision Date: 08 December 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 4534
• Citation: 101 Cal.App.2d 50,224 P.2d 878
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ et al.

Page 878

224 P.2d 878

101 Cal.App.2d 50

PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ et al.

Cr. 4534.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Dec. 8, 1950.

Fred N. Howzer, Atty. Gen., Donald D. Stoker, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Theodor Ira Kowan, Los Angeles, for appellant.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

Having been convicted of burglary of a service station appellant filed his motion for a new trial which was denied. He now demands a reversal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. His codefendant Ramirez was acquitted.

About midnight of February 10, 1950, the operator of a cafe on South San Pedro street in Los Angeles heard a noise like breaking glass. Looking out of his window he saw two boys running through the nearby alley carrying two tires. He could not identify them as the defendants who had but recently loitered in his place of business. About two hours later a police officer arrested defendants. Ramirez promptly denied all knowledge of the crime but admitted he had been out with appellant and others. When the officer called on appellant and 'asked him what had happened that they had pulled this burglary' and demanded to know what became of the tires, appellant answered agreeably and said that they were in his garage. After he and the officer had recovered the tires, appellant stated that three friends were 'in on the deal with him.' The reference was to defendant Ramirez and two juveniles. The latter attempted at the trial to assume full responsibility for the crime. However, while the officer was still at appellant's home, the accused stated that 'he broke the windows and took the tires and would take the blame for the whole thing.'

Evidence Sufficient

The evidence dis in no respect deficient. The proprietor of the gas station did not cnsent to the removal of the tires. He testified that two windows of his structure had been broken and two tires removed. The cafe proprietor heard the clatter of the breaking glass and witnessed the flight of two participants. These facts comprising the corpus delicti having been established, People v. Wilt, 40 Cal.App.2d 124, 127, 104 P.2d 387, the free and voluntary confession of appellant connected him with the crime and made him the principal factor in its commission. His possession of the stolen goods corroborates his candid statement to the officer. People v. Jones, 123 Cal. 65, 69, 55 P. 698.

However, at the trial, appellant took a 'new tack.' While admitting that he had made the confession to the officer, he denied that he had broken the windows or taken the tires or planned with others to do so. Despite appellant's considered strategy at the trial he was too entangled to be absolved. He had become intoxicated from his bibulous carousals; he was at the scene of the crim; he had possession of the stolen property when it was discovered and he freely confessed his guilt to the arresting officer. His own denials and the testimony of the two juveniles that appellant had nothing to do with the crime are mere contradictions of the proof adopted by the court as the basis of its implied finding.

Therefore, the judgment cannot be reversed since it cannot be said that upon no hypothesis whatever is there insufficient evidence of a subatantial character to sustain it. People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.id 778; People v. Daener, 96 Cal.App.2d 827, 216 P.2d 511. The court performed within the bounds of its powers in accepting appellant's spontaneous confession as the truth rather that they protestations of the two juveniles that they only were guilty of the crime charged. People v. Yankee, 79 Cal.App.2d 431, 434, 179 P.2d 582.

Appellant cites authorities, People v. Draper, 69 Cal.App.2d 781 et seq., 160 P.id 80, in support of his contention that the evidence is insufficient. It cannot be gainsaid that convictions have resulted from a paucity of proof only to be reversed by the exercise of their constitutional powers by appellate courts. But the reversal of one judgment for cause is not a carte blanche command to reverse another without cause. In appraising the factual and inferential basis of a verdict each decision must be considered on its own facts. People v. Wolfeart, 98 Cal.App.2d 653, 220 P.2d 778.

Appellant apparently proceeds upon the assumption that because the juveniles testified with emphasis that they alone committed the burglary it could not have been done by him and that therefore his confession was disproved. He forgets that it is the function of the trial court to unravel commingled skeins of contradictory proofs even though some of them are utterances or...