People v. McCann

[377]

Me COMB, J.

Defendant was convicted, after trial before the court without a jury, of burglary. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and order denying his motion for a new trial.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the respondent, the facts are:

December 31, 1938, the home of Anthony Guadnola in the city of Los Angeles was entered and a watch stolen therefrom. At the time of the burglary defendant was in the city of Los Angeles. On January 6, 1939, defendant was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, together with a man by the name of Hash. The stolen watch was in an overcoat belonging to Mr. Hash. Defendant at the time of his arrest stated that the watch belonged to him and that it had been given to him by a party in Amarillo, Texas. Defendant after questioning was released and later arrested in El Centro, California, with the stolen watch in his possession. He was brought to Los Angeles, where he stated that he had purchased the watch from a man named Olson in Phoenix, Arizona, for the sum of $3 and denied being in Los Angeles at the time of the burglary. Later he stated that he had purchased the watch from a man named Fred in Los Angeles for the sum of $4. When the case was called for trial, defendant substituted his present attorney for previous counsel and his present attorney requested a continuance for five days, so that he might produce a witness who would corroborate defendant’s story that he purchased the watch in Los Angeles from a man named Fred. This continuance was denied.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

First: There is no substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s judgment finding defendant guilty of burglary.

Second: The trial court committed prejudicial error in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance.

The first proposition is untenable. The law is established in California that possession of stolen property coupled with false statements as to the manner in which the property came into defendant’s possession is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of burglary.

(People

v.