People v. Burch

California Court of Appeal May 26, 1953 No. Crim. 4946Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the defendant's convictions for bookmaking and accepting a bet under the Penal Code, and that the terms of probation were not reviewable because the defendant failed to appeal from the order granting probation.

Issues

Was there substantial evidence to sustain the finding that defendant was guilty of a violation of section 337a, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code?
Was there substantial evidence to sustain the finding that defendant was guilty of violating subdivision 6 of section 337a of the Penal Code?
Did the trial court err in placing defendant on probation for the period of five years in view of section 1203.1 of the Penal Code?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is clear, therefore, that oral bookmaking is as much a violation of the statute as is written bookmaking.”

“One instance of accepting a wager under the prohibited circumstances constitutes a violation of the code section.”

“The rule is established that on an appeal in a criminal case from an order denying a motion for new trial the court may consider only such errors pr irregularities as occur between the time of joining of the issue of fact and the rendition of the judgment.”

McCOMB, J.

From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after a judgment of guilty of violating (a) subdivision 1 of section 337a of the Penal Code (poolselling and bookmaldng) and (b) subdivision 6 of section 337a of the Penal Code (accepting a bet) following trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.

Viewing the evidence as we must in the light most favorable to the People (respondent) the record discloses that on May 30, 1952, two Los Angeles police officers observed defendant in front of a barbershop conversing with two men and consulting a newspaper. Shortly after the discussion defendant entered a public telephone booth located outside of the barbershop and made a telephone call. On leaving the telephone booth he reapproached the two men and nodded his head, whereupon the two men left.

Shortly thereafter the police officers observed defendant talking with two women seated in an automobile in front of the barbershop. Defendant had been seen to consult a newspaper and hand it back to the women immediately prior to his entering the telephone booth. He then returned to the ear and one of the officers heard the woman behind the wheel say, “Give me two dollars to win on Willow Way in the first race at Hollywood Park.” Defendant stated, “O.K.” The passenger in the car then stated to defendant, “And give me one dollar to win on Red Bachelor in the first race at Hollywood Park.” As the women started to place some money in defendant’s hand they observed one of the officers standing behind defendant and immediately replaced the money in their pockets. Thereupon the officers identified themselves and took from defendant’s hand a copy of the Los Angeles Daily News, dated May 30, 1952. The paper was turned to the sports section containing the Hollywood Park handicap. The officers found upon examining a National Daily Reporter scratch sheet that both Willow Way and Red Bachelor were running in the first race at Hollywood Park on that date.

At the trial, after qualifying as an expert, one of the officers testified that the conversation which had been overheard between defendant and the women in the automobile disclosed a form of oral bookmaking which was typical in Los Angeles. He also testified that, “Two dollars to win on Willow Way in the first at Hollywood Park” meant a two-

[124]

dollar bet placed on a horse to win in the first race at Hollywood Park and gave a similar interpretation of the statement alluding to “Red Bachelor in the first race at Hollywood Park. ’'

People v. Burch

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief