People v. Rice

• Citation: 61 Cal.Rptr. 394,253 Cal.App.2d 789
• Decision Date: 22 August 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 13148
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell Peter RICE, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 394

61 Cal.Rptr. 394

253 Cal.App.2d 789

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell Peter RICE, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 13148.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Aug. 22, 1967.

Donald F. Roeschke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard Tanzer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

KAUS, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree burglary.

The only substantial point is the legality of defendant's arrest, which arrest yielded a specimen palm print, which matched a like print discovered in the burglarized premises.

On May 18, 1966, at 4:00 a.m., Officer Adams was driving his police car eastbound on Hollywood Boulevard. Near Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue he saw two other police officers talking to the defendant and another person. He did not stop, but cruised by slowly. Defendant and the other person were both wearing tight capri pants and loud colored sweaters. Defendant's hair was long, the hair of the other person was bleached blond. They appeared to Adams to be female impersonators.

When Adams made these observations he was responding to a call somewhere east of the scene. Having completed his business he returned along Hollywood Boulevard in a westerly direction. As he passed the sixty-five hundred block he saw the defendant and his companion standing on the side-walk. No one else was near them. This was about forty-five minutes after he had first observed them being interviewed by the police. He proceeded westbound for about five to ten minutes, when he received a call to the effect that a silent burglar alarm was being sounded at 6520 Hollywood Boulevard, about three to four stores from where he had last seen the defendant. He went to that address and saw that the display window of a wig shop had been broken. Several mannequins in the window were bald. He called the owner of the store and other police units. He stayed at the scene until somebody connected with the wig shop and the police units arrived.

George Riddell, the manager of the shop, had left it at about 7:00 p.m. the night before. When he returned at 10:00 a.m. after the burglary, he observed the broken glass plat window and noticed that several wigs were missing from the mannequins. There was 'glass all over' and a brick in the window. The window was located in such a fashion next to the entrance of the store that there was no access to it from the inside of the store without a key. Six wigs and several smaller hair pieces were missing.

On May 20 at about 5:00 a.m. Officer Violano, who was in the company of Officer Nepper, received a call that there were 'car prowlers' on Bronson near Hollywood Boulevard. The two officers drove there to investigate. No car prowlers were discovered, but defendant and four other people were walking in the vicinity. They came upon the scene as Violano was questioning somebody whom he had observed lying in the back seat of a car. After defendant arrived Officer Nepper went to the police car and read the 'daily occurrence sheet.' On that sheet defendant was mentioned as a possible suspect in the wig shop burglary. He was described as a 'male Caucasian, six foot-one, approximately 165 to 170, red hair, light complexion.' The occurrence sheet also gave his name, date of birth and other data 'which was taken off of a field interview which was made in Hollywood on Highland. * * *' Defendant was asked to identify himself, which he did. The 'identification matched this description along with the physical identification.'

Defendant was then arrested on the burglary charge. A palm print was obtained. The print matched a print found on a portion of the broken glass of the wig shop window. Expert testimony established that the latter print was on the inside surface of the glass fragment in question.

On appeal counsel raises two points:

1. The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of burglary; and 2. the specimen palm print was obtained after an illegal arrest and should have been excluded as being the product thereof.

The first point requires no discussion of any length. The physical facts surrounding the breaking of the window together with the missing merchandise certainly permit the inference that the window was broken and entered for the purpose of theft. Defendant was placed near the scene of the crime by Officer Adams and his palm print was discovered in a spot where it could not have been left except after the window had been broken by someone. We think the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.

We turn to the legality of the arrest.

As far as the totality of all knowledge possessed by various members of the police department is concerned, it seems clear that there was probable cause to make the arrest. Again, defendant was near the burglarized premises at a time when few other people were about and his appearance was such that it was not unreasonable to conclude that he had a use for wigs. Certainly...