People v. Head

California Court of Appeal Nov 1, 1935 No. Crim. 2761Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the evidence supported the conspiracy and burglary charges and that the trial court did not err in denying a substitution of counsel.

Issues

Whether conspiracy to commit burglary and grand theft is a valid offense.
Whether the offense of conspiracy merges with the completed offense.
Whether entering a church to commit larceny constitutes burglary.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for substitution of counsel.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence is almost conclusive that the entry was made into the church in each instance for the purpose of committing the crime of theft.”

“The right to change counsel at any time is a right that is to be reasonably exercised, and there is nothing in the record before us which shows any prejudice to the appellant”

“As the evidence introduced was amply sufficient to support the judgment, the judgment is affirmed.”

YORK, J.

The first point raised by appellant that “There is no such offense as conspiracy to commit the crimes of Burglary and Grand Theft”, is fully answered by the decision in the case of

People

Welch,

89 Cal. App. 18 [264 Pac. 324].

[649]

The second point that “The proof is insufficient to establish conspiracy”, is fully met by the evidence from which the court could draw no other conclusion than that the defendants went together into at least two different churches, and that almost the same thing happened in each of three instances. In the light of alb the evidence before the court, the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn was that the two defendants planned to do the things they did do before entering the two different churches.

The third point is that “The offense of conspiracy, if committed, was merged with the completed offense. Accused could not be convicted of both the offense and the conspiracy which ended in the offense.” This question is answered by the decision in the case of

People

Eiseman,

78 Cal. App. 223, 250 [248 Pac. 716].

Point four is stated by appellant as follows: “The offense of burglary was not committed. (A) There was no proof of any intent. (B) One who enters a church where the public is invited and after services attempts to commit larceny from the person of another invited guest is not guilty of burglary.” The facts in evidence were similar in each offense charged, i. e., the picking up of a purse of the person in front of defendants, when the owner of the purse was kneeling in prayer. These facts and the conduct of defendants, as shown, taken as a whole, fully answer subdivisions (A) and (B) of this contention. A person is presumed to intend to do the things which he does, and especially so when they are done in the commission of a crime, excepting where intent must be proved as a necessary element. The public is invited by a church for the purpose of participating in the services, but it certainly cannot be contended that the public is invited there to commit a crime. The entry into a building for the purpose of committing a crime can be proved by the acts, conduct and circumstances connected with the offense charged. The evidence is almost conclusive that the entry was made into the church in each instance for the purpose of committing the crime of theft.

People v. Head

AI Brief

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief