People v. Mangiameli

California Court of Appeal Apr 1, 1957 No. Crim. 5808Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for violating Penal Code section 337a, as the trial judge was entitled to credit the testimony of the officers over that of the defendant and his witness.

Issues

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for bookmaking.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As his sole ground for reversal appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. With this contention we cannot agree.”

“That the evidence is abundantly sufficient to sustain the conviction herein, to us, seems manifest.”

WHITE, P. J.

In an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with three violations of section 337a of the Penal Code. We are here concerned only with Count II in which a conviction resulted and by which defendant was accused of a violation of subdivision 3 of the foregoing Penal Code section, in that he did “. . . receive, hold, . . . certain moneys . . . staked, pledged, bet and wagered . . . upon the result of a trial . . . and contest of speed . . . between beasts, to wit, horses.” From the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The prosecution introduced evidence that on March 10, 1956, Deputy Sheriffs Ray and Keesling entered the 6800 Club and seated themselves at the bar next to a Mr. Horton who was looking at a daily newspaper and writing certain notations on a slip of paper. When Mr. Horton left the bar he was followed by the officers to a smoke shop at 6716 Central Avenue. This shop was operated by the defendant who was standing in the rear thereof, and was handed a slip of paper and some money by a man who came out of the back room of the shop. In that back room six or eight people were seated around two tables. They were looking

[644]

at the National Daily Reporter or racing forms and listening to the results of races.

Mr. Horton entered the back room as did Officer Keesling while Officer Ray engaged the defendant in conversation.

The latter was busy at the time writing on a slip of yellow paper. The paper contained a number of initials and figures. This was an “owe sheet” that is a record of the money owed by or to the “book.”

Mr. Horton left the back room. As he approached the defendant he handed the former a piece of paper, a betting marker, i.e., the record of a bet which a better gives to a bookie, and two one-dollar bills, saying, “Here, Joe, this is for the third.” The defendant, who knew Mr. Ray was an officer pushed Mr. Horton’s hand away.

Officer Keesling returned to the back room. Officer Ray told the defendant “Let’s go to the back room.” Whereupon defendant yelled, “Get out, everybody the cops,” and himself jumped for the front door but was prevented from making good his escape.

People v. Mangiameli

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief