People v. Wright

Decision Date07 October 1949
Docket NumberCr. 4309
Citation94 Cal.App.2d 70,210 P.2d 263
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE v. WRIGHT et al.

Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, for appellant Daniel M. Casey.

Frederic H. Vercoe, Los Angeles, for appellant Edwin R. Wright.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Henry A. Dietz, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appellants Wright and Casey were convicted by a jury of grand theft. Motions for new trials were denied. They appeal from the judgments and the orders denying their motions for new trials. Each appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict as to him, and that the court erred in giving instructions.

The evidence stated most favorably to respondent follows.

On April 19, 1948, Ila Brown was employed as cashier and bookkeeper at the Alexander Market located on Washington Street near Rimpau in Los Angeles. Immediately after 2:30 p.m. that day, she left the market with about $8,800, including some $5,800 in cash, in a moneybag to be deposited in a bank located the second door down Washington Street. She had not quite reached the sidewalk when she felt some one pull on the moneybag held in her hand. She turned around, saw a strange man next to her, and screamed. The man took the bag, hurried away and entered a car parked at the curb. Mrs. Brown had not seen the man before. She testified that he had on coveralls and a cap like a trainman wears,--a soft cap with a bill; that a cap shown to her which was found in the glove compartment of appellant Wright's automobile looked exactly like the one she saw. The car he entered was a light gray Plymouth coupe without a license on the rear. The car appeared to be new. There was another man seated in the car. Mrs. Brown only saw the back of his head. When the man who took the bag entered the car, it pulled away. She testified that appellant Casey looked like the man who took the bag; 'he looks like the man, from his height and coloring and age, and all that'; that she was not sure it was Casey.

Lawrence Morain was seated in an automobile nearby. He heard a scream, looked in the direction of the market and saw a man struggling with a woman. The man was 5 feet 8 or 9 inches, and wore a sort of olive-drab coveralls, green, such as were worn during the war by members of the armed forces. The man ran 12 or 15 feet to a light gray Plymouth coupe, about a 1947 model, which was parked against the curb facing west right near the scene of the scuffle, and entered it. A man who wore glasses was seated in the automobile in his shirt sleeves. Morain testified that the license plate on the car, which pulled off in a westerly direction, bore license number 75X530 on the front end and that there was no license plate on the rear end. He gave the license number to a clerk in the market, who wrote it down correctly. He saw the car a couple of days later at a police station. It was appellant Wright's car.

Booker Forston was operating a shoeshine stand across the street from the market. About 2:45 he heard a scream, looked up, and saw a man grab some money from Mrs. Brown, run, get in a car and speed away. The car was a light cream colored coupe. The man had a cap on something like the cap shown him. He did not see a license plate on the rear of the car.

Appellants has known each other about 30 years prior to the day of the theft. They were born in Oak Park, Illinois, grew up together, and had been neighbors in Chicago. Wright came to California in December, 1947, and engaged in the engineering business with an office at 8511 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, at the time of the theft. He lived at the Hollywood Athletic Club, 6521 Sunset Boulevard, about 2- 1/2 miles from his office. Casey had been in California about 6 years and lived at 1625 South Vineyard, Los Angeles, about 3 to 5 blocks from the Alexander Market. He is a veteran. He had been employed by Wright for about 3 months between January and March, 1948. Casey knew where the Alexander Market was located and had been there several times. He told a police officer, 'I think I even know the girl.' Wright knew where Casey lived and his exact address from memory. On April 12th or 13th, 1948, Wright went to Casey's home and got him out of bed at 8:15 a. m., ostensibly to talk about employing him. On the night of April 16, 1948, Wright and Casey met on the corner of Rimpau and Pico Streets about 7 blocks north of the Alexander Market at about 10:00 p. m., also ostensibly to talk about Casey's employment. Casey did not own an automobile. On March 12, 1948, Wright rented from a rental agency, and on April 19, the day of the theft, he had in his possession, a light gray Plymouth coupe, 1947 model, with license number 75X530, with both front and rear license plates attached. On occasions Wright parked this car in a parking lot at 6521 Sunset Boulevard, next door to the Hollywood Athletic Club, where he lived.

On April 19, 1948, about noon, Wright parked the car in the parking lot, went into the Athletic Club, had lunch, had a conference with Jack Cartwright, and then went with Cartwright to the lobby. When they arrived in the lobby 'close to' 2:00 p. m., Casey was there. Wright stepped over to Casey, spoke to him a few moments and Casey left. A few minutes later Wright went to the parking lot, talked to the attendant, took the Plymouth, and about 2:00 p. m. left with Casey in the car. At that time both front and rear license plates were on the car.

The police began an investigation of the theft about 5 minutes after it occurred. After learning that the Plymouth with license number 75X530 was rented to Wright, they went to the Athletic Club about 5:00 p. m. and found Wright wearing glasses in the lobby. Wright told them that the car was in the parking lot next door. Two officers and Wright proceeded to the parking lot where they found three men starting to wash the car. The rear end had not been washed. The car appeared to be quite clean. There were several fresh scratches just back of the license plate. The officers found a sort of denim cap in the glove compartment similar to those used by firemen and brakeman on railroads. Wright told the officers that he had bought the cap; he did not know where; he had a friend up in the country who had a farm or something; he was going to do some rock work up there; he bought it to wear up there; he had never worn it. Wright told the officers that he had arrived at the club at noon and had stayed until 3:15 or 3:30; he did not meet any one downstairs in the club except Cartwright; when he left he drove directly to his office; he had not gone any place with the car that afternoon except to the club and to his office.

The officers examined the rear license plate. It was loose. There were three small bolts which fastened the plate to the rear end of the car, called the turtleback. The nuts on two of the bolts were very loose. They could be screwed or unscrewed with the fingers. The nut on the third bolt was missing. An officer found the missing nut on the pan between the bumper and the body of the car near the handle of the turtleback and placed it loosely on the bolt. He then lifted the turtleback three times and dropped it down hard. Each time the nut fell off and rolled into the back end of the car. In the rear end there was a place alongside of the spare tire for the tool kit. The kit was out of its place lying on the floor. A pair of pliers was out of the kit on the mat. The distance between the license plate and the turtleback was not more than 1/8 inch. Each of two officers was unable to place his finger between the license plate bracket and the body of the car.

On the face of the rear license plate, the officers found fingerprint smudges which they were unable to identify because there were water spots on the rear of the car. They found a print of Wright's right thumb in an upward position on the rear of the plate about two inches from the right-hand side as one faces the plate and about one inch from the bottom of the plate. When confronted with this fact and told that he must have had the plate off to get the fingerprint on it, Wright answered, 'I don't know what happened.' He said that he had not had any occasion to be near the back plate; that the only time he had been near the turtleback was about a week before when he put a bed roll in the rear end of the car. On April 22nd, Wright told the officers he thought he could explain how his fingerprint got on the license plate, and proceeded to do so. On the witness stand he admitted the story was a fabrication.

On April 20th, Wright was interrogated by police officers as to his movements on the 19th. He stated that he left his office about 12:40 p. m. arrived at the club about 12:50, had lunch, stayed with Mr. Cartwright on an upper floor from about 1:30 until 2:40 or 2:50, did not see any one in the lobby, went to a linotype company and to the auto park next to the club about 3:25; he did not 'meet a soul' in either the lobby or the auto park; he took his car out of the park and drove directly to his office where he stayed until 4:50. One of the officers testified that after Wright had made this statement, the following occurred:

'Then I said, 'Well, Mr. Wright,' I said, 'the fact of the matter is,' I said, 'you left Mr. Cartwright much earlier than that, because I have two witnesses that will testify that you left that auto park no later than five minutes to 2:00.' And he said, 'No, it couldn't be.' He said, 'I left there about 3:30 or 3:25.' 'Well,' I said, 'these same two witnesses,' I said, 'are willing to state that you left there with another man.' I said, 'Now, isn't that a fact?' And he stopped a minute and he said, 'Well, yes, come to think about it I did leave there with another man.' I said, 'Well, who is that man?' He said, 'Dan Casey.' I said, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Cooley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1962
    ...66 P.2d 631; People v. Tom Woo, 181 Cal. 315, 326, 184 P. 389; People v. Stephens, 66 Cal.App.2d 755, 152 P.2d 1019; People v. Wright, 94 Cal.App.2d 70, 210 P.2d 263.) In view of the foregoing rule, it is inevitable in reviewing the long record that we examine with more particularity the ev......
  • People v. Martinez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1982
    ...or contradictory statements may constitute an admission. (People v. Wayne, 41 Cal.2d 814, 822-823, 264 P.2d 547; People v. Wright, 94 Cal.App.2d 70, 80, 210 P.2d 263; People v. Simmons, 28 Cal.2d 699, 712, 172 P.2d 18.) The trial court could and did see Martinez' evasive, nonresponsive answ......
  • People v. Davis
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1957
    ...238 P.2d 1001; People v. Hays, 101 Cal.App.2d 305, 225 P.2d 600; People v. Miner, 96 Cal.App.2d 43, 54, 214 P.2d 557; People v. Wright, 94 Cal.App.2d 70, 80, 210 P.2d 263. Davis contends that this instruction was insufficient, that the jury should have been further instructed on his right t......
  • People v. Goldstein
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 8, 1955
    ...681, 197 P.2d 413; People v. moran, 144 Cal. 48, 60, 77 P. 777; People v. Scott, 84 Cal.App. 642, 649, 258 P. 638; People v. Wright, 94 Cal.App.2d 70, 80, 210 P.2d 263. Counsel for appellant also asserts that there was error in receiving exhibits consisting of the three checks, defendant's ......
  • 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