People v. Ramirez

MOORE, P. J.

Having been convicted of burglary of a service station appellant filed his motion for a new trial which was denied. He now demands a reversal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. His codefendant Ramirez was acquitted.

About midnight of February 10, 1950, the operator of a café on South San Pedro Street in Los Angeles heard a noise like breaking glass. Looking out of his window he saw two boys running through the nearby alley carrying two tires. He could not identify them as the defendants who had but recently loitered in his place of business. About two hours later a police officer arrested defendants. Ramirez promptly denied all knowledge of the crime but admitted he had been out with appellant and others. When the officer called on appellant and "asked him what had happened that they had pulled this burglary” and demanded to know what became of the tires, appellant answered agreeably and said that they were in his garage. After he and the officer had recovered the tires, appellant stated that three friends were "in on the deal with him.” The reference was to defendant Ramirez and two juveniles. The latter attempted at the trial to assume full responsibilty for the crime. However, while the officer was still at appellant’s home, the accused stated that "he broke the windows and took the tires and would take the blame for the whole thing.”

[52]

Evidence Sufficient

The evidence is in no respect deficient. The proprietor of the gas station, did not consent to the removal of the tires. He testified that two windows of his structure had been broken and two tires removed. The café proprietor heard the clatter of the breaking glass and witnessed the flight of two participants. These facts comprising the corpus delicti having been established

(People

v.

Witt,

40 Cal.App.2d 124, 127 [104 P.2d 387]) the free and voluntary confession of appellant connected him with the crime and made him the principal factor in its commission. His possession of the stolen goods corroborates his candid statement to the officer.