People v. Singleton

• Decision Date: 31 October 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 12887
• Citation: 63 Cal.Rptr. 324,255 Cal.App.2d 547
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas SINGLETON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 324

63 Cal.Rptr. 324

255 Cal.App.2d 547

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas SINGLETON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 12887.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 31, 1967.

Michael G. Steiniger by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lola M. McAlpin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

Defendant and one Leathers were found guilty of burglary, second degree (§ 459, Pen.Code); probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the state prison. He appeals from the judgment.

On June 10, 1966, in the absence of Arthur Williams, his apartment at 4729 West San Vicente was entered and various items were removed. The draperies which had been left open were drawn, pillows were scattered over the floor, a screen had been removed from the kitchen window, the bedroom had been ransacked and the closet door left open. Missing were Williams' stereo, clothing, clock radio, four pairs of Gloves, cologne, a tube of toothpaste, a book of checks and record albums. Williams denied giving anyone permission to enter his apartment or to take anything therefrom.

Around 1 p.m. on June 10, 1966, Sergeant Modarelli was driving a police unit toward San Vicente when he observed defendant and Leathers carrying a stereo from an apartment house at 4729 San Vicente; they were 'carrying or struggling with this stereo' on the sidewalk; piled on top of the stereo were various articles of men's clothing, a radio, pair of boots, records and some cologne; as he approached they quickly set down the stereo and defendant tripped or stumbled and fell out into the street; he stopped and questioned defendant and Leathers as to where they were taking the stereo; he was told that it was being taken to St. Elmo Drive, and Leathers told him that it belonged to defendant; he asked defendant what kind of stereo it was and he replied he did not know; Leathers said it was a Magnavox; he looked at it and found it was a Sears Silvertone; defendant said he lived there (4729 San Vicente) or used to live there. Sergeant Modarelli further testified that during this time neither defendant nor Leathers was under arrest, only 'under investigation'; then he called for assistance and another police unit arrived and took defendant to the apartment house where there was a discussion with the manager; shortly thereafter the officer and defendant returned to the police unit; they then placed defendant and Leathers under arrest and advised them of their constitutional rights.

Defendant testified that he went to Williams' apartment entering through the back window, and removed the stereo and other items; he did this because he had information that Williams was going to be burglarized and since he was a friend of his he went over to warn Williams; Williams was not home so he decided to protect him by taking the property to his own house; he did not advise anyone of his fear that Williams' apartment would be burglarized and did not leave a note for Williams telling him that he had taken the items.

Appellant argues that under Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct.1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361; and People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 43 Cal.Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97, his statements were inadmissible because 'it is obvious that at the time Officer Modarelli questioned (him) he was in custody.'

The conversation between Officer Modarelli and defendant constituted neither a 'custodial' interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) nor 'a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements' (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 354, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 174, 398 P.2d 361, 366); and it is apparent from the evidence that the investigation was a general inquiry that involved neither an 'unsolved crime' nor a 'particular suspect.' (People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361.) Sergeant Modarelli testified that when defendant talked to him neither defendant nor Leathers was under arrest but was 'under investigation at that particular time'; and other evidence supports this testimony. Defendant was not placed under arrest until after the statements were made and after defendant, who claimed he lived at 4729 San Vicente, or used to live there, went...