People v. Reynolds, Cr. 5672
| Decision Date | 19 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5672 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phynus REYNOLDS and Joseph Nichols, Defendants. Joseph Nichols, Appellant. |
Edwin J. Wilson, Long Beach, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and James L. Mamakos, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Nichols and one Reynolds were charged in Count I of an information with burglary, and in Count II with unlawfully receiving stolen property. Trial was by jury. Nichols was found not guilty on Count I, and guilty on Count II. Reynolds was found guilty on Count I. Count II was dismissed as to Reynolds. Proceedings were suspended and probation was granted to both defendants. Nichols appeals from the order granting probation.
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
During the night of December 16, 1955, burglary was committed at the office of Mr. Cotter (a used car dealer in Long Beach) and an adding machine, serial No. 557796, was stolen from the office. Defendant Reynolds was convicted of committing that burglary.
Officer Parris testified that on December 22, 1955, he saw an adding machine in Nichols' cafe, and upon checking the serial number of it with the serial number of the stolen adding machine he found that the numbers were the same; defendant was not present at that time but his sister was there; the officer took the machine, a drill, and checkwriter from the cafe; the next morning the officer saw defendant on a lot next to the cafe; the officer asked him about the adding machine which the officer had taken from the cafe; defendant said that he bought it for $15 from a key man at 2121 Orange Avenue a week or two or a month previously; the officer asked him to go with the officer to the key man; defendant said that he could not go because he had to work; the officer arrested him and while they were in the police car on the way to the key shop defendant said it might be that he bought the machine a month and a half or two months previously, and he was not sure that he bought it from the key man; when they were at the key shop the office asked the man if he had sold an adding machine to defendant; the man replied that he had not sold an adding machine but had sold a checkwriter to him three or four days previously; on the way from the key shop to the police station defendant said he did not know where he obtained the adding machine--that he bought lots of things from different persons and he knew some of the persons and he did not know the others; he also said that he was in the contracting business but he buys and sells articles if he thinks he can make money on the resale; he also said he did not remember paying $15 for the adding machine; on December 27, in a conversation at the police station, defendant said that he made the deal to buy the machine for $30 in the Royal Palm Cafe but he was not sure as to the name of the fellow; he paid the man $10 in cash and gave $20 to another person who took it to the man later that day; during the conversation at the station defendant Reynolds, who was in jail, was brought into the presence of the officer and defendant Nichols, and the officer asked Nichols if Reynolds was the man from whom he bought the adding machine; Nichols replied that he looked like the man but he (Nichols) was not positive; the officer asked Reynolds if Nichols was the man to whom he sold the machine, and Reynolds replied that he was the man.
Mr. Cotter, the owner of the adding machine, testified that he paid $300 for the machine about three years ago when it was practically new; he bought it from the Nevada Car Company; in his opinion the value of the machine (when stolen) was $200; his estimate as to value was based upon the prices of similar machines, which prices were from $300 to $350.
Mrs. Diamond, called as a witness by defendants, testified that she was office manager of the Long Beach Branch of Remington-Rand; the records of her office show that an adding machine, bearing the serial number of Exhibit 1 (machine here involved), was first sold in 1948 to the Nevada Car Company.
Mr. Honeyman, called as a witness by defendants, testified that he was a real estate broker and was also in the vending business (apparently placing vending machines in restaurants); about December 18, 1955, while he was sitting in a booth in the Royal Palm Cafe he saw an adding machine which was similar to Exhibit 1; the machine was offered for sale for $60; at that time 10 or 12 persons were present; thereafter defendant Nichols entered the cafe and sat in the booth with the witness (Honeyman), and they discussed business; defendant Reynolds approached the booth and asked defendant Nichols if he was interested in buying the adding machine for $60; Nichols asked the witness what he thought the value was; the witness replied that it was worth $40; Nichols offered $30 for it; the witness and Nichols continued to talk about their business affairs; then Nichols left the cafe.
The testimony of defendant Nichols was in substance as follows: He owns three cafes, and he has a contractor's license for cement work. On December 18, 1955, as he was going into the Royal Palm Cafe (not owned by him) he met a little short fellow at the door who said he had a machine for sale. While Nichols and Honeyman were at a table in the cafe a 'tall bright [lighter colored] fellow' came to them and said that he had a machine for sale. Nichols knew that man 'by sight,' but he did not know his name at that time. The man so referred to was defendant Reynolds but the first time Nichols knew his name was later, when they were at the police station. Nichols asked Honeyman what the machine was worth. Honeyman replied that it was worth about $40. Nichols said he would give $30 for it. Reynolds said Nichols said he had only $10 with him and he would have to get a check cashed. Reynolds asked Nichols to go to his room and see the machine. While they were in Reynolds' room, Nichols paid $10 and asked Reynolds to put the adding machine in Nichols's car. The 'little short fellow' (whom Nichols had seen at the door of the cafe) was also in the room. Reynolds told Nichols that the short fellow would go hom with Nichols and that Nichols, after cashing a check, should give $20 to the man. Nichols took the machine to one of his cafes and gave $20 to the man. The first time he (Nichols) heard that the machine was stolen was the morning that Officer Parris came to him on the vacant lot (about December 23) and asked him what he was doing 'with all that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McFarland
...generally applied where the accused is found in possession of the articles soon after they were stolen.' (See also People v. Reynolds, 149 Cal.App.2d 290, 294, 308 P.2d 48; People v. Lopez, 126 Cal.App.2d 274, 278, 271 P.2d 874.) In People v. Citrino, supra, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288-289, 294 P.2d......
-
People v. Lyons
...to material questions with reference to the ownership of stolen property tend to prove such knowledge.' (People v. Reynolds (1957), 149 Cal.App.2d 290, 294(2), 308 P.2d 48; see also, People v. Cole (1903), 141 Cal. 88, 90, 74 P. 547; People v. Boinus (1957), 153 Cal.App.2d 618, 621-622(1, 2......
-
People v. Green
...used by car thieves, appellant was discovered driving the car within four days after it had been stolen. (See People v. Reynolds (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 290, 295, 308 P.2d 48.) Moreover, the jury was entitled to infer consciousness of guilt from the fact that...
-
People v. Anderson
...751 (within one hour); People v. Clark (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 342, 345, 265 P.2d 43 (about twelve hours); People v. Reynolds (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 290, 295, 308 P.2d 48 (six days); People v. Conrad (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 184, 185, 270 P.2d 31 (following day); People v. Owens (1947) 79 Cal.App......