People v. Smith, Cr. 6533
| Decision Date | 29 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6533 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Francis Douglas SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harry Weiss, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In a nonjury trial defendant was convicted on two counts of burglary. The burglaries were alleged to have been committed on March 26, 1958 in entering two stores in West Covina, known as Elegantia Men's Wear and Norm Meager's Men's Store. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
In the morning of March 26, 1958 defendant and Beverly Day drove an automobile from Los Angeles to West Covina. In West Covina they entered Elegantia Men's Wear. The owner and Mr. Wise, the manager, were in the store. Elegantia carried only men's wear. Defendant had been in the store on one prior occasion looking for a suit. Wise waited on defendant for about 15 minutes. During this time Beverly was on the opposite side of the store in a section where jackets and slacks were kept. Wise's back was toward her. There were some sixteen suits in that section which had been received by the store the night before and had not been 'ticketed.' After defendant had looked at several suits he and Beverly left the store. A few minutes later Wise started to ticket the sixteen suits and found only fifteen.
A little later that morning defendant and Beverly entered Norm Meager's Men's Store, also in West Covina. Mr. Bouquette was working alone in the store. He showed a suit to defendant. Beverly was present when they started to look at the suit and then she went to the back of the store. She requested permission to use one of the dressing rooms to fix a shoulder strap. While defendant was looking at suits she stepped out the back door toward the parking lot and later returned. Defendant tried on a suit and asked Bouquette if he (Bouquette) would slip it on. Defendant appeared to like it. Bouquette figured the price of the suit. Defendant then walked to the end of the store where he talked to Beverly. He pulled out a 'folded bunch of bills,' counted them, and talked to Beverly as to whether they could afford the suit. Beverly shook her head, indicating she disagreed. Defendant and Beverly then told Bouquette they would talk it over and return later. Later that day, after a call from the police, Bouquette found that three suits were missing from the store. He looked in the dressing room which Beverly had used and found three of the store's wooden hangars similar to the ones on which the three missing suits had been hanging.
Later defendant and Beverly were in Greene's Men's Wear Store in West Covina. Then they drove to Redlands, where they entered Fowler's Men's Store. During the course of the day they went into six or seven men's stores.
About 2:45 the same day Officer Elliott of the Redlands Police Department received from the chief of police of Redlands a description of defendant and the automobile which he was driving. He walked down the street in front of Levine's Men's Store in Redlands, saw an automobile in front of the store which answered the description of the car which had been given to him, and entered the store where defendant was trying on a coat. Beverly was seated on a chair near him. He arrested them immediately.
Elliott asked defendant for the keys to the car. Defendant searched through his pockets and pretended not to find the keys. At the request of Elliott defendant went outside the store with him to see if the keys were in the car. The car was parked 'immediately adjacent in front of the store.' The keys were not in the car. Elliott and defendant returned to the store. Elliott again asked defendant for the keys and he again searched without results. Elliott then told him to take everything from his pockets and defendant did so but did not produce the keys. Elliott then asked defendant to search in the jacket he was wearing. Other officers arrived at the scene and one of them found the keys in a pocket of the jacket.
Elliott then opened the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. People of State of California
...the proper warrant. If he does, the burden of showing the legality of the search or arrest then shifts to the state. People v. Smith, 171 Cal.App.2d 568, 340 P.2d 640; People v. Prewitt, 52 Cal.2d 330, 341 P.2d 1; People v. Lyons, 204 Cal.App.2d 364, 22 Cal.Rptr. 327; People v. Reece, 201 C......
-
People v. Johnson
...that the arrest was made without a warrant (Badillo v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.2d 269, 272, 294 P.2d 23; People v. Smith, 171 Cal.App.2d 568, 570, 340 P.2d 640; People v. Guy, supra, 145 Cal.App.2d 481, 488, 302 P.2d 657), otherwise it must be presumed that the search or arrest was ma......
-
People v. McNeal
...People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 594, 318 P.2d 552; People v. Holguin, 145 Cal.App.2d 520, 522, 302 P.2d 635; People v. Smith, 171 Cal.App.2d 568, 570, 340 P.2d 640; People v. Guy, 145 Cal.App.2d 481, 488, 302 P.2d 657; People v. Vaughn, 155 Cal.App.2d 596, 599, 318 P.2d Defendant not ......
-
People v. Moulton
...warrant. Thus, it must be presumed that the seizure was lawful (People v. Northrup, 203 A.C.A. 498, 21 Cal.Rptr. 448; People v. Smith, 171 Cal.App.2d 568, 340 P.2d 640; People v. Goldberg, 152 Cal.App.2d 562, 314 P.2d 151). Furthermore, even in the absence of a search warrant, Undersheriff ......