People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 28 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 12672 |
| Citation | 61 Cal.Rptr. 238,253 Cal.App.2d 952 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernest WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Mary Ellen Pangonis, Los Angeles, under appointment by District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Brian Amer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant was charged by information, in count I thereof with grand theft, a felony (Pen.Code, § 487, subd. 1), and in count II thereof with receiving stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496, subd. 1). Both counts of the information rested upon the theft of a calculating machine and its subsequent disposition. The information also charged the defendant with having suffered a prior conviction of violation of section 503 (now section 10851) of the Vehicle Code, a felony, on December 31, 1957, and with having served a term of imprisonment therefor in state prison. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and denied the truth of the allegations of the prior conviction. A jury trial was waived, and after trial by the court sitting without a jury, he was adjudged not guilty as to count I of the information and guilty as to count II thereof. The allegations of prior conviction of felony were found to be true. Upon the hearing therefor, the motion for a new trial was denied, probation was denied, and the defendant was sentenced to state prison. The appeal is from the judgment of conviction.
On September 28, 1965, the Active Sales Company, Inc., whose office was situated at No. 1518 East 15th Street in the City of Los Angeles, was the owner of a Victor calculating machine, which was used by its employees in connection with its business. Robert Kincart, the assistant manager more or less and purchasing agent for the company, had last used the machine at about 3:00 p.m. on the above date. At 5:00 p.m., when he locked the premises to go home, he discovered that the machine was missing. He did not know the defendant and he had not given anyone permission to enter the premises of his employer and take the machine.
The calculating machine was on the desk of the bookkeeper in the main office. From this location there was a door to the public sidewalk available to business invitees and employees of the company. Mr. Kincart next saw the machine at the Newton Street police station after he was notified by the police to come and claim it, approximately a month after it was stolen, which he did.
On or about October 22, 1965, Robert L. Smith, a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, visited a pawn shop known as Tony's Loan, situated in county territory at 8913 South Vermont Avenue. He was possessed at this time with information concerning the theft of the Victor calculating machine from the premises of 'Active.' He obtained a copy of the 'buy sheet' showing that the Victor calculating machine had been pawned at Tony's Loan on September 28, 1965. He then talked to the defendant concerning the theft of the machine and its subsequent hypothecation. Before talking to the defendant he advised him of his right to an attorney, of his right to remain silent, and that anything he said could be used against him later in court. The defendant's statements were freely and voluntarily made.
Officer Smith asked the defendant if he remembered having pawned a Victor calculator at Tony's Loan company on September 28, 1965, to which he replied that he did not. Officer Smith asked him if he remembered pawning or selling a calculating machine to any pawn shop, and he replied that he did not. At this juncture Officer Smith produced a copy of the pawn shop 'buy certificate' containing a fingerprint and bearing the signature of 'William Ernest,' which he showed to the defendant. He told the defendant that the fingerprint contained on the document had been examined and compared with a fingerprint of the defendant on file with the police department and that such examination and comparison disclosed that the prints were made by one and the same person. He told the defendant further that Officer Smith testified that the defendant then stated, When asked who his friend was, the defendant told Smith that he did not remember his name, but he was a good friend of his. When Smith asked what had occurred at the pawn shop, he replied that 'his friend said he didn't have any identification on him and asked the defendant to pawn it for him and the defendant said he did take the machine into the shop and he did sell the machine to Tony's Loan Company' and that '(h) e received $30 for the machine.'
There was evidence that the calculator had cost $435, exclusive of excise and sales taxes, at the time of its purchase in 1960, and that at the time of its theft it had an insured value of $275. Tony's Loan company sold the machine to a wholesaler for $125. The records of Tony's Loan company, made available to Officer Smith at the time of his investigation, indicated that on October 10, 1965, the defendant had returned to the pawn shop and had received an additional sum of $15 on the transaction. The owner of Tony's Loan company, Joe Soto, was present on September 28, 1965, when the loan was initially made. Although he was unable to identify the defendant in the courtroom because of the numerous people who visited his shop, he nevertheless recalled the transaction in which the machine was given in a 'buyback' for $30. He was also present when someone returned with a pawn ticket and was given an additional $15, which resulted in the attempted transfer of ownership of the machine to Soto. He was certain that the person to whom $30 was given on September 28 was the same person to whom he gave $15 several days later. At the time the calculator was first brought to the pawn shop, no one came into the shop who lacked proper identification, left, then returned with someone else who had identification. Only one individual came into the shop and pawned the machine.
At the time the calculator was pawned, a report was made out on a form entitled 'County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.' Identification based upon a driver's license or a social security number was taken as well as a fingerprint of the individual, and all such information as well as the print was placed upon the report. The defendant's fingerprints on an exemplar card were examined and compared by a duly qualified expert with the fingerprint on the sheriff's department report form, and such prints were found to have been made by one and the same person.
The defendant testified that he and his wife were driving south on Vermont Avenue when a friend by the name of Wilson hailed him at a stop sign. Wilson asked him to drive him to a pawn shop and offered to purchase some gas in exchange for this favor. The defendant then drove Wilson to Tony's Loan. Upon reaching Tony's Loan, Wilson went in, telling the defendant that he would be right back. Wilson was carrying an adding machine in a bag. Wilson returned shortly and stated, 'I don't have any I.D.' and asked the defendant to get a loan for him and if he did so, that he could have $5. He testified that the adding machine was still in the pawn shop when Wilson came out and that he then went into the shop, signed the ticket, and showed Mrs. Soto his driver's license, then placed his fingerprint on the ticket. He claimed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Price
...other than the defendant stole the property. (People v. Taylor (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 979, 984, 83 Cal.Rptr. 119; People v. Williams (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 952, 958, 61 Cal.Rptr. 238.) A conviction for receiving stolen property may be based on evidence "that the property in question was stolen,......
-
People v. Allen
...he was charged with receiving stolen property and with its theft, but was acquitted of the latter (e.g., People v. Williams (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 952, 958-959, 61 Cal.Rptr. 238): both held the prosecution could convict the defendant of receiving stolen property without proving beyond a reas......
-
Commonwealth v. Owens
... ... 178, 247 S.W.2d 889, ... 891 (1952) (rejecting presumption), with Buckley v. State, 2 ... Md.App. 508, 235 A.2d 754, 757 (1967); People v. Everett, 10 ... N.Y.2d 500, 225 N.Y.S.2d 193, 180 N.E.2d 556 (1962) ... (accepting presumption) ... [1] The present Chief Justice dissented ... amended, May 21, 1943, P.L. 306, § 1, 18 P.S. § ... 4817. See also, Moore v. State, 241 Ark. 745, 410 S.W.2d 399 ... (1967); People v. Williams, 253 Cal.App.2d 952, 61 Cal.Rptr ... 238 (1967); State v. Palkimas, 153 Conn. 555, 219 A.2d 220 ... (1966); Combs v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.2d 744 ... ...
-
People v. Jaramillo
...and of receiving the same property. (E.g., People v. Briggs (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1036, 97 Cal.Rptr. 372; People v. Williams (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 952, 958, 61 Cal.Rptr. 238; People v. Marquez (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 627, 634, 47 Cal.Rptr. 166; People v. Tatum (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 179, ......