People v. Kepford

DEIRUP, J.,

pro tem.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree upon evidence which may be summarized as follows:

Ralph Watson owned a poultry ranch. The defendant was the owner of a blue “Nash” sedan, around which was a narrow white stripe, and on three occasions the defendant had visited the ranch in his car. On the evening of February 10, 1935, Latima Ziemann, a neighbor, while driving slowly past the Watson place, observed a blue “Nash” sedan parked-at the side of the road. She noticed a streak of “a bright color”, which she recalled as being yellow, around the car. On the following morning Watson discovered that his barn had been broken into and that two egg cases, each half-full of eggs, had been stolen. Andrew Herzer, who lived on a ranch in an adjoining county, testified that about three weeks or a month prior to March 15, 1935, the defendant brought an egg case, partly full of eggs, to that place in his blue sedan. Andrew’s mother testified that the case arrived at the time when the defendant did. Louis Totman, a deputy sheriff, took the egg case from the Herzer home on March 15th. It was offered in evidence, and was identified by Watson as being exactly like one of the two that had been stolen. The defendant did not account for his possession of the article.

Defendant contends that each of the circumstances as proven failed to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was connected with the crime. The “Nash” ear seen at the edge of the road was not positively identified as being bis, and the egg case shown to have been in his possession was not definitely proven to be the one which was stolen. Defendant argues that each of the circumstances must be viewed separately in the light of the presumption of innocence.

[130]

The jury had before it all of the circumstances connecting the defendant with the crime, and it was their province to draw inferences therefrom. The ownership of an automobile similar to one observed near the scene of a crime was held, in

People

v.

Latona, 2

Cal. (2d) 714 [43 Pac. (2d) 260], to be a circumstance indicating guilt, and testimony that an article found in a defendant’s possession is similar to one that was stolen, is a sufficient identification, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant.