People v. Sagehorn, Cr. 3180

Decision Date22 March 1956
Docket NumberCr. 3180
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alden SAGEHORN, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert H. Kroninger, Kennedy Jackson, Oakland, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Frank Coakley, Dist. Atty., Alameda County, Lawrence Dayton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas J. Buckley, Deputy Dist. Atty., Oakland, for respondent.

KAUFMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant Alden Sagehorn from an order granting probation under certain condictions, after jury verdict of guilty on all three counts of an indictment. Appellant was charged with violation of Penal Code, section 182, subd. 2 (conspiracy falsely and maliciously to procure another to be charged and arrested for a crime), violation of Penal Code, sections 236 and 237 (false imprisonment), and prejury. The appeal is also taken from the order denying a new trial.

Appellant was tried with his co-defendants Raymond Gaudinier and Oliver Yothers who were also charged with the first two offenses set forth in the indictment. Gaudinier and Yothers were acquitted. The conspiracy count charged that appellant had conspired with these co-defendants and with 'others unknown.'

William McClure, out of whose alleged false arrest and imprisonment this case arose, was a merchant engaged in a hardware and paint business at 5221 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland. The defendants named in the indictment were all members of the Oakland police force. Late one evening in November, 1954, Sergeant Simin of the Oakland police found McClure asleep in his automobile in front of his store. Simin awakened him and asked for identification. He handed the officer his wallet which contained between $1,200 and $1,300 in currency. Simin handed it back, asked McClure if he had shotgun shells in his store, and when McClure said that he did, Simin said he would be in the next day. The officer came into the store the next morning, asked for two boxes of shotgun shells which McClure procured for him. Simin told McClure that he could have rolled him for $1,000 on the previous night and could have put him in jail. He then left without paying for the shotgun shells.

Appellant Sagehorn, a lieutenant in the Oakland Police Department, first met McClure early in November, 1954 at Benny Campisi's Fairfax Tavern. Campisi had asked McClure to join the Footprinters, a club of which appellant was secretary. McClure gave appellant his application and the $15 initiation fee. The initiation was to be held on November 19, 1954.

On the evening of November 16, 1954, McClure had been drinking at Campisi's tavern. He and Campisi decided to go to McClure's store, a few blocks from the bar. Each took his own car. As McClure was making a left turn into a parking lot he collided with another vehicle, but drove on into the lot. Campisi tried to convince the driver of the other car that everything could be taken care of without calling the police, but since the other driver insisted that it be reported, Campisi put in a telephone call from McClure's store. Shortly thereafter a police officer arrived at the store and escorted McClure out to the sidewalk where Campisi was talking with two other police officers. They placed McClure in the back of a patrol car. Sergeant Simin was among the officers present but he took no part in the investigation. McClure was given a citation for an illegal left turn with the notation 'HBD', meaning 'had been drinking.' He and Compisi then went back into the store where Campisi asked him for money to take care of the officers. There was $60 in McClure's wallet. Campisi took $50. There were then five police officers in the store. McClure went behind a partition, telling Campisi that he didn't want to see to whom he gave the money. When he came out again, Campisi had gone but the officers were still there. Simin then asked if her wanted to take care of the patrolmen and McClure asked him, 'Well, how about tomorrow?' Simin then said 'When do you want to take care of me?' McClure replied, 'How about Monday or Tuesday?' Simin said 'O. K.' and then helped himself to two boxes of shotgun shells which he had McClure put in a bag, saying that otherwise some one might think he had stolen them. Two other officers also took boxes of shotgun shells. The officers left and McClure went to the rear of his store. When he looked to the front again, Simin was approaching him. He told McClure that he could go to jail, be charged with drunk driving, probably lose his license for a year, and perhaps cost him $1,000. He said McClure could make it easy on himself if he wanted to. When McClure asked him what the deal was, Simin asked him if it wasn't worth $1,000 to avoid the publicity. McClure then took $1,000 from the safe and gave it to Simin.

On the evening of November 17, 1954, Officer Morehead who had been one of the officers at the scone of the accident, came into McClure's store and asked him for money. McClure said there was no money after last night as the shakedown had been a little heavy, that all he had was his merchandise. He told Morehead that he had given the sergeant $1,000. The officer then looked around the store, took a skillet without paying for it, and had McClure put it in a box for him.

The following morning when McClure was in Campisi's bar, Simin came in, berated McClure for being a 'blabber-mouth', saying that he had 21 years seniority on the Oakland Police force and was not going to have it jeopardized. He told him to keep his mouth shut or he would find himself in the estuary.

On November 20, McClure complained of these matters to the Oakland Chief of Police who sent Lieutenant Guidici and Inspector Lawrence to see him. They gave him a card with their names and telephone number and asked him not to discuss the fact that they had seen him. They commenced an investigation and on December 2, 1954, questioned Campisi. That same day Campisi told appellant Sagehorn about the investigation. On December 4, 1954, Officer Warren, who had been at McClure's store on the night of the accident was called from duty for questioning at about 6:00 p. m., returning to duty afterward.

On the evening of December 4, 1954, McClure went to the Here's How Tavern at Laverne and Foothill in Oakland between 8:00 and 9:00 p. m., parking his station wagon in front of the tavern. He had two bottles of beer, two sandwiches and two cups of coffee during the time he spent there. He talked to a Carol Bowers for about two and one-half hours during which time he drank nothing alcoholic. While there, he created no distrubance. When he left, Miss Bowers went with him to the car, and stood talking to him after he had got in behind the wheel. An officer in uniform came from across the street, opened the car door, and took McClure by the arm, saying that he was wanted.

Officer Beedle, who took McClure in to Eastern Station with him, was assigned to districts 55 and 56 which did not include the area where the Here's How Tavern was situated. At about 1:15 a. m. on the morning of December 5, Officer Beedle had reported in by radio, and a message was broadcast to him to call his lieutenant at once. He called in and was connected with appellant. Appellant informed him that there was a man in a bar at Foothill and Laverne, about 55 years old, with grey hair, wearing brown pants and brown shirt, and that he had a green station wagon. Beedle was told to find this man and bring him into the station. After receiving these orders, Beedle went to the corner of Laverne and Foothill, parked across the street from the tavern, and waited till he saw a man answering the description, enter the station wagon.

When Beedle and McClure arrived at Eastern Police Station, Beedle showed McClure to appellant, asking if he was the man. Appellant said he was, and told Beedle to take him into the booking room. He did so, giving Officer Yothers, one of defendants, McClure's name, address, and where he had picked him up. He said that appellant would supply the other information.

McClure stated that the first thing said at the booking desk by one officer was 'Here is your ringer'. Officer Gaudinier, one of the defendants, said, 'Oh, a fink.' He was then searched. McClure attempted to tear up the card given to him by the investigators, Lieutenand Guidici and Inspector Lawrence, but it was snatched from him, and Gaudinier told him that he would break his arm if he destroyed it. Gaudinier handed the card to Yothers saying, 'Well, he is the ringer all right.' Gaudinier asked McClure how much money he had. He said about $50. When they counted it and found he had $50.15, they remarked on how smart he was, calling him a vulgar name. Gaudinier asked if Simin was around, and an unidentified voice replied that he had just left.

McClure was searched, placed in a cell and given a receipt for his property. He was taken in a partol wagon to the jail at the City Hall. At about 8:00 a. m. he was released after putting up $25 bail. Later, he appeared in court on the charge of 'drunk in a public place', a violation of the Oakland Municipal Code, and the charge was dismissed. Shortly after McClure had been brought into Eastern Station, appellant left and did not return until after McClure had been taken to the City Hall.

An arrest report by the Oakland Police Department is made up in a set of five, each in a different color. The white one is kept by the station in whose jurisdiction the arrest is made, the remaining copies are brought to the City Hall when the prisoner is brought in. It is customary to have all copies approved by the commanding officer of the station before leaving with the prisoner. The station copy in the present case contained appellant's signature, and the offense was described...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • People v. Figueroa
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1986
    ...question of "materiality" decided by the jury. (See Sinclair, supra, 279 U.S. at pp. 298-299, 49 S.Ct. at 273; People v. Sagehorn (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 138, 153, 294 P.2d 1062.)As counsel for Joseph notes, the continuing validity of these rules may be doubtful in light of In re Winship, sup......
  • People v. Taylor
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1974
    ...coconspirators have not yet been tried (People v. Roy (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 459, 463, 59 Cal.Rptr. 636; see also People v. Sagehorn (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 138, 146, 294 P.2d 1062), or have been subsequently acquitted (People v. Holzer (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 456, 459, 102 Cal.Rptr. 11), such si......
  • People v. Prince
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1968
    ...of the conspiracy, but it is possible to have a conspiracy with persons who are not apprehended and tried (People v. Sagehorn (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 138, 146, 294 P.2d 1062); and the dismissal of charges against alleged coconspirators so they can become prosecution witnesses will not prevent......
  • McMillian v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1991
    ...States, 181 F.2d 326, 330-31 (6th Cir.), aff'd 339 U.S. 974, 70 S.Ct. 1029, 94 L.Ed. 1380 (1950); People v. Sagehorn, 140 Cal.App.2d 138, 146-47, 294 P.2d 1062, 1068 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1956). Accordingly, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals and decline to set aside ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT