People v. Savage

GOULD, J.,

pro tem.

Indicted by grand jury, defendants were found guilty of second degree burglary after trial by the court, jury having been waived. From the court’s judgment and order denying motion for new trial they appeal.

At the time of the crime charged appellants were employed as radio police officers by the Los Angeles police department, working a “prowl car” on a night shift. Aluminum ware in considerable quantities disappeared from a warehouse in the district which they frequented. Appellant Savage had visited the warehouse and had inspected the stockroom with the proprietor, promising police protection. Suspicion was fastened upon Savage by his remarks as to the ease of obtaining aluminum ware; search of his home uncovered numerous items similar to articles missing from the warehouse, and other pieces were found concealed under burlap in the basement of appellant Ford’s father’s house, including one item especially manufactured for the warehouse owner and missing from a set of four such pieces. Conflicting stories were told by Ford as to how he came into possession of the goods, which he admitted he had transferred from his own to his father’s house when he learned that his eodefendant was in trouble over the matter. Scratches and grooves about the warehouse lock indicated that it had been tampered with, and a piece of celluloid fitted to the grooves by police opened the door.

Appellants raise two points; that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and that error was committed in admitting statements of appellant Ford after his arrest.

Particularly it is urged that there was no evidence of entry of the building, a necessary element in the crime of burglary. Direct evidence that the accused entered the

[144]

premises is not required, but that fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(People

v.

Basuino,

118 Cal. App. 158 [4 Pac. (2d) 971];

People