People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal Nov 15, 1954 No. Crim. 3039Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for burglary because the prosecution failed to establish that the defendant had possession of the stolen property or exercised dominion and control over it. Mere association with the perpetrators and presence at the scene where stolen goods were displayed is insufficient to sustain a verdict.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had possession of stolen property to support a burglary conviction.
Whether the defendant's association with the perpetrators and presence during the display of stolen goods constitutes sufficient evidence of guilt.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Unless there is evidence in the record sufficient to establish possession of the stolen property in appellant, a prima facie case sufficient to go to the jury has not been made out.”

“evidence that merely raises a suspicion, no matter how strong, of the guilt of a person charged with a crime is not sufficient to sustain a verdict and judgment against him.”

“Since there appears to be insufficient evidence of possession of stolen goods on the part of appellant herein, the rule of “recent possession plus false statements” does not apply.”

KAUFMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. An information filed March 9, 1954, by the district attorney of Alameda County, charged Garfield Smith, appellant herein, Vernal Owens and Lawson Thomas Venson with burglary in that on December

[707]

11, 1953, they entered the jewelry store of Clement L. Palmer in Oakland, California, with the intent to commit theft therein.

After jury trial, appellant was found guilty and the jury fixed the degree of the offense as second degree burglary. Motion for new trial was denied and appellant was sentenced to the Alameda County jail for six months. Execution of judgment and sentence was suspended for a period of two years, and appellant was placed on probation on condition that he serve three months in the county jail and make restitution of the stolen property as directed by the probation officer.

On December 11,1953, some time between 1 and 7 o’clock in the morning, a brick was thrown through the window of Palmer’s Jewelry Store in Oakland. Pour watches and eight to twelve rings were found to be missing by Palmer when he arrived at 7 that morning. There were no witnesses to the breaking and entering of the shop.

On December 12,1953, between 9 p. m. and 11:30 or 12 p. m., appellant, Owens and Venson played pool at Joe James Pool Hall in Merced, California, a distance of approximately 130 miles southeast of Oakland. At about 11:30 p. m. Owens left the pool hall and returned with a brown paper bag. He emptied the contents—some watches and rings—on a pool table. There were then about five or six persons in the pool hall. Venson asked the witness Sullivan if he wanted to buy some, and told him to go up and look at the jewelry. Owens offered to sell Sullivan a watch for $5.00 and a ring for $2.50.

While Owens was displaying the jewelry, defendant was doing a dance to the accompaniment of the juke box next to the table where Owens was displaying the jewelry. The witness Sullivan testified that he and perhaps two other men were looking at the jewelry and also watching Smith dance, that he was “doing a jig dance, getting quite a kick out of it.”

During the evening Smith and Venson had played pool together and also had been sitting together at the bar. Appellant, Venson and Owens all left the pool hall together. Owens was carrying the paper bag. Sullivan followed the men out, saw them enter a Ford car, and reported the incident to the police. The three men were apprehended by Sergeant Guard of the Merced Police Department at about 1 a. m., December 12, 1953. The car was being driven by Venson who exhibited the pink slip as proof of ownership. Guard asked Venson if they had been attempting to sell jewelry. Venson denied knowledge of any such attempt. Owens was also ques

People v. Smith

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief