People v. Renek
| Decision Date | 03 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4603 |
| Citation | 105 Cal.App.2d 277,233 P.2d 43 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RENEK. |
Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Gilbert Harelson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with a violation of subdivision 2, section 337a of the Penal Code in that he did keep and occupy a store at 248 East Fifth Street in the city of Los Angeles, with books, papers, paraphernalia, etc for the purpose of registering and recording bets on horse races.
Following a plea of not guilty and waiver of trial by jury, defendant was convicted by the court. His motion for a new trial was denied, proceedings were suspended and he was granted conditional probation. From the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Because it is urged as a ground for reversal that the evidence is insufficient to support the decision of the court and that the same is contrary to the law and the evidence, it becomes necessary to narrate the factual background which gave rise to this prosecution.
The record reveals that on Auguat 8, 1950, Los Angeles police officers Chavez and Pendergast observed several men with scratch sheets and racing forms in their hands, in the immediate vicinity of a grocery store at the above address. The officers saw several men go into the store, talk with defendant and then leave. One man was observed going into the store where he handed the defendant, a clerk therein, 'what appeared to be currency and also a piece of white paper'. Defendant put the currency in his pocket, folded the piece of paper and placed it in a large box in the store. At different times, other men would enter the store, talk to defendant, and following each of these conversations and the departure of the men in question, defendant would go to the rear of the store.
After observing these activities for some forty-five minutes, Officer Chavez entered the store and ordered a Coca Cola from defendant. While Chavez was drinking the same the telephone in the back room of the store rang. Defendant thereupon went to the rear of the store. He returned in a few moments and put something in the same box in which he had previously placed the folded piece of paper. The officers examined this box and found it also contained rolls of toilet tissue. In the center tubes of two of the rolls were 38 individually folded pieces of paper, each of which was a betting marker.
It was stipulated that Officer Pendergast was an expert on bookmaking practice in Los Angeles County. On one of the 38 betting markers was the figure '3' and the letter 'D', following by the word 'Tonita'. On the same line and following the word 'Tonita' was referred to the 3rd race, the 'D' to Del Mar, 'Tonita' to a horse, and 'XIX' to a one dollar place bet. According to a scratch sheet for August 8, 1950 there was a horse by the name of 'Tonita' running in the third race at Del Mar on that date. On the second line of this same betting marker was the figure '8' followed by 'S.A.' and the word 'Props.' The word 'Props' was followed by the figures '1-1' and the letter 'X'. Underneath this was the word 'Joe' and the initial 'M'. Officer Pendergast stated that this second line was a one dollar to win and one dollar to place bet on a horse by the name of 'Props' running in the 8th race at Saratoga. The word 'Joe M.' was the name of the better on the two races. That there was a horse by the name of 'Props' running in the 8th race at Saratoga on August 8, 1950, according to a scratch sheet for that date, in the possession of the officer.
Officer Pendergast compared each of the 37 other betting markers found in the tissue rolls with a scratch sheet for August 8, 1950, and found that each horse listed on those markers was running at one of the various tracks in the country on that date.
Also in the store were scratch sheets and racing forms, a memorandum book, a notebook and 40 or 50 small pieces of blank paper. Defendant had two pieces of blank paper in his shirt pocket.
Officer Pendergast testified that some of the papers and devices commonly used by bookmakers are scratch sheets, racing forms, entries in the daily newspapers, pieces of paper, pens and pencils, and telephones. That the scratch sheets are issued daily on the races running in the United States. They contain the latest scratches, the names of the horses running in the various races at the various tracks, the names of the jockeys and their post positions, the probable odds, and tips on long shots. They also contain the previous day's results on the races throughout the United States. That bookmakers use these scratch sheets to see that the horses on which they accept wagers are running and to determine the race in which they are running in order that 'they won't be past posted on a race'.
That after a bookmaker receives a bet he records it by writing the name of the horse, the amount of the bet, the name, initials, or code name of the bettor, and whether the bet is to win, place or show, on a betting marker. That 'If the bet is not too large and it doesn't seem like a sure thing they (the bookmakers) will hold their own action by hiding the betting markers' and later checking them against the results. In these cases the bookmaker will make the payoffs himself. However, if the bet he receives 'is believed to be too large for him to handle, he phones it out to somebody else'.
Defendant testified in his own behalf and denied that he carried on any bookmaking activities. He stated that he had been employed as a clerk at the store for approximately one month. He saw the officers remove the betting markers from the rolls of tissue but stated that he had never seen the markers prior to that time. However, the two tissue rolls in which the betting markers were found were on the top row of the box and he admitted that he had looked in this box on prior occasions. Defendant also admitted that the phone rang while Officer Chavez was in the store but denied that he answered it or went to the rear of the store. According to defendant's testimony, Officer Chavez answered the phone. Defendant said that the racing forms and scratch sheets in the store were for sale; however, the store did not sell newspapers or magazines.
On appeal by an accused from a judgment of conviction the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, People v. Carothers, 77 Cal.App.2d 252, 253, 175 P.2d 30; People v. Cayer, 102 Cal.App.2d 643, 228 P.2d 70. With this rule in mind, we conclude that the circumstances shown by the evidence above narrated reasonably justify the finding of the trial judge that appellant was occupying the premises in question for a purpose proscribed by subdivision 2, section 337a of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burton
...that the precise ground for its exclusion must have been clearly specified to the trial court. (Citations.)' People v. Renek, 105 Cal.App.2d 277, 283, 233 P.2d 43, 47. And, as stated in People v. Rodriquez, 135 Cal.App.2d 757, 759, 288 P.2d 147, 149: '* * * However, failure to object to the......
-
People v. Lopez
...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. In that light we will summarize the evidence which tends to sup......
-
People v. Brown
...People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730, 300 P.2d 204; People v. Fowzer, 127 Cal.App.2d 742, 746, 274 P.2d 471; People v. Renek, 105 Cal.App.2d 277, 283, 233 P.2d 43; People v. Goff, 100 Cal.App.2d 166, 172, 223 P.2d 27; People v. Agajanian, 97 Cal.App.2d 399, 405, 218 P.2d 114; People v.......
-
People v. McCree
...People v. Tedesco, 1 Cal.2d 211, 219, 34 P.2d 467, 470; also People v. Reifenstuhl, 37 Cal.App.2d 402, 99 P.2d 564; People v. Renek, 105 Cal.App.2d 277, 233 P.2d 43; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 104 P.2d 778. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant, it is appa......