People v. Lenahan

California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 1940 No. Crim. 2108Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for grand theft, finding that the trial court's implied findings regarding the defendant's lack of authority to pledge the client's stock, the value of said stock, and the significance of the defendant's flight were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for grand theft.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the stolen property had a value exceeding two hundred dollars.
Whether the trial court properly considered evidence of the defendant's flight as tending to prove consciousness of guilt.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was direct, substantial evidence to support the implied finding of the trial court against the defendant and, such being the case, an appellate court may not interfere.”

“It is well settled that the evidence showing the flight of the defendant, when he knew he was charged with crime, was properly admitted and was properly considered with all other facts and circumstances as tending in some degree to prove a consciousness of guilt.”

SPENCE, J.

Defendant was found guilty of the crime of grand theft upon a trial by the court sitting without a

[40]

jury. His motion for a new trial was denied and the trial court pronounced judgment placing defendant on probation for a period of six years with the condition that the first year thereof be served in the county jail. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant was an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in this state. In 1936, defendant was engaged by Mr. Duarte, the complaining witness, to bring an action against the Postal Union Life Insurance Company for the rescission of a transaction in which Mr. Duarte had parted with securities having a face value of $24,000 for 967 shares of the stock of that company. The stock certificate, endorsed in blank by Mr. Duarte and his wife, was delivered to defendant in January, 1937, for the purpose of tendering said certificate to said company and demanding the return of the consideration .given. The tender was refused and the certificate remained in the possession of the defendant until June, 1937. At that time, defendant pledged said stock with a bank as additional security for an indebtedness of $9,750 which he personally owed to said bank. Mr. Duarte first learned of the pledge of the stock when he was notified in 1938 that a new certificate had been issued in the name of the bank. Mr. Duarte consulted the district attorney about this matter. The district attorney talked with defendant and told him that “Something looks funny about it. ’ ’ Defendant asked, “ If I satisfy Duarte, or if I talk with Duarte and straighten this out, then are you satisfied?” The district attorney then said “If Duarte don’t come back to the office, as far as I am concerned there will be no warrant issued.” Defendant got in touch with Mr. Duarte immediately and arranged to see him at the office of a San Francisco attorney on the following day. Defendant left by plane for Seattle that night and wired Mr. Duarte that he would not meet him personally on the following day as planned. Within a day or two after arriving in Seattle, defendant learned that a warrant had been issued for his arrest and thereafter defendant was not heard from until about six months later when he was arrested in Rockford, Illinois, for issuing a check under the

People v. Lenahan

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief