Robert P., In re, Cr. 37987

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LILLIE; SPENCER, P. J., and L. THAXTON HANSON
• Citation: 121 Cal.App.3d 36,175 Cal.Rptr. 252
• Parties: In re ROBERT P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Petitioner and Respondent, v. ROBERT P., Appellant.
• Docket Number: Cr. 37987
• Decision Date: 29 June 1981

Page 252

175 Cal.Rptr. 252 121 Cal.App.3d 36 In re ROBERT P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
The PEOPLE, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT P., Appellant. Cr. 37987. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. June 29, 1981.

[121 Cal.App.3d 38]

Page 254

Michael J. Udovic, Pasadena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward T. Fogel, Jr. and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attys. Gen., for petitioner and respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

The minor appeals from order sustaining petition on three counts petty theft, receiving stolen property and tampering with an automobile and order of disposition.

A prima facie showing of the corpus delicti of the crime charged must be established before a defendant's extrajudicial statements, admissions or confessions may be received in evidence. (People v. Cantrell, 8 Cal.3d 672, 679, 105 Cal.Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256.) Appellant contends there is no evidence independent of his statements to show that he committed the crimes. He is in error for the establishment of the corpus delicti does not require proof that defendant committed the crime charged. (People v. Starr, 11 Cal.App.3d 574, 581, 89 [121 Cal.App.3d 39] Cal.Rptr. 906.) " 'All that need be shown by independent evidence before a confession may be introduced is that a crime has been committed by someone.' (Citations.)" (People v. Ott, 84 Cal.App.3d 118, 131, 148 Cal.Rptr. 479; original emphasis.) The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence and by reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. (People v. Miller, 71 Cal.2d 459, 477, 78 Cal.Rptr. 449, 455 P.2d 377.)

Here ample independent evidence establishes that the crimes charged were committed. An automobile belonging to Nancy Church had been tampered with; the tires, radio and speakers of the vehicle were removed without the owner's consent and they were found in the possession of someone other than the owner.

On the night of December 18 a 1979 Pontiac Firebird with personal license plate "NCHURCH" and containing a Motorola 8-track AM/FM stereo belonging to Nancy Church was stolen.

At 1 p. m. on December 19 Officer Roupoli on patrol in a marked vehicle observed two juveniles, one of whom was appellant, standing at the gate of a residence. The other juvenile was holding up two tires which he began to roll toward the gate which appellant held open; at that time appellant looked in the direction of the officers then slammed the gate closed and ran to the rear of the yard. One officer detained the juvenile with the tires while Officer Roupoli ran through the gate; he observed defendant in the rear utility room of the residence looking out of the open door; when appellant saw the officer he disappeared into a smaller room from which Officer Roupoli ordered him to exit, and as he stepped out he dropped some gloves; appellant was detained for investigation. Officer Roupoli with the owner of the residence went to the utility room in which he had seen appellant and observed on an open shelf a small Motorola car stereo with two components; he then walked outside and searched the immediate area finding a 1979 Pontiac Firebird with personal license "NCHURCH" 75 yards from the gate. All four tires and the Motorola radio with speakers were missing from the Firebird; the tires and Motorola radio seized by the officers were identified by Church as belonging to her 1979 Firebird; she had given no one permission to take her car, tires or stereo.

Officer Jennings had a conversation with appellant who after being given his rights said he understood and waived them. Appellant told him "Alan came driving down the alley in a new Firebird. He told me [121 Cal.App.3d 40] he just stole it and the keys were in it. I watched Alan strip it and he asked me to take the tires down the street and he would give me some money. Me and Lizard was pushing the tires when the police caught us." He then stated: "The car the officers found in the alley was the one we took the tires off."

Ample independent evidence established the corpus delicti of each offense; it

Page 255

also demonstrated that appellant was not a stranger to the activity relating to the car, tires or radio. The extrajudicial statements of appellant were properly admitted. The evidence reviewed above is sufficient to enable a reasonable trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offenses alleged in the petition. (In re C. D. H., 7 Cal.App.3d 230, 233, 86 Cal.Rptr. 565.)

Finally, appellant cites as error the trial judge's refusal to accept the affidavit filed pursuant to section 170.6, Code of Civil Procedure,...