People v. Holland

California Court of Appeal Nov 6, 1947 No. Crim. 4154Published

Before: Wilson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 503 where the defendant was found in possession of a stolen vehicle along with a stolen license plate, and that the trial court did not err in refusing instructions on intoxication or the sufficiency of possession evidence.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for taking and driving an automobile without the owner's consent.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the effect of intoxication on intent.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that possession of stolen property is insufficient by itself to prove guilt.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The automobile having been found in the possession of appellant, with the added circumstance of his possession of the stolen license plate belonging to another car, a verdict of guilty was justified.”

“In the absence of evidence that appellant was intoxicated, or that his acts were to any extent the result of the drinking of intoxicating liquor, there was no basis for the instruction.”

WILSON, J.

Appellant was charged with the crime of grand theft and with the violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code, taking and driving an automobile without the consent of the owner and with intent to deprive the owner of its title and possession. He was also charged with having been convicted of two prior felonies, both of which he admitted—one being a violation of the Dyer Act, the other conspiracy to violate the Mann Act. He was acquitted of the crime of grand theft and convicted of violating section 503 of the Vehicle Code.

He has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, stating as grounds thereof (1) that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence and is contrary to law, and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions requested by appellant.

Sufficiency of the evidence.

The undisputed evidence is that the automobile in question was assigned by its owners to one of their employees for his use. He parked the car in a parking lot and when he returned for it at 8 o ’clock in the same evening the cSr was not there. He had not given permission to anyone to move the car and he did not know appellant.

About 10:30 on the evening of the disappearance of the car two police officers observed it being driven in an irregular manner about a mile from the parking station. They stopped the car, at which time appellant was driving it. The officers found on the floor of the car, between the front and back

[312]

seats, a license plate and a wine bottle. The license plate had been stolen from another automobile a short distance from the parking lot between 7 and 10 o’clock on the same evening. The license plate and the wine bottle were not in the car at the time it had been left in the parking station earlier in the day.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

Appellant urges that the only evidence of his guilt was that of his mere possession of the car, that there was no evidence of his intent to deprive the owner of possession of the automobile, and that the evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction. He contends that in order to establish intent the evidence must affirmatively show that he had knowledge of the fact that his driving of the ear was not authorized by the owner. He analogizes his case to those wherein it has been held that mere possession of stolen property is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary. (See

People v. Holland

AI Brief

WILSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief