People v. Moran

SHEPARD, J.

Defendants were charged with others by indictment with the crime of conspiracy “to cheat and defraud by criminal means, and to obtain money and property by false pretenses and by false promises with intent not to perform such promises, in violation of section 182, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code. ...”

The cause was tried before the court sitting without a jury. Defendants Moran, Berry, Zareone, Hubbard and Jackson were found guilty as charged. Probation was granted to all

[412]

of the convicted defendants for a period of three years on condition that they spend the first eight months in the sheriff’s custody, that they pay certain fines, and that they perform certain restitution in amounts fixed by the court in the judgment. An appeal was taken by Zareone, Hubbard and Jackson from the order denying a new trial, but Zareone has abandoned his appeal so that the appeal of only Hubbard and Jackson is before the court at this time.

The first specification of error is that there was no sufficient evidence from which the court could lawfully find that the appellants intentionally entered into a conspiracy with any persons to cheat and defraud as indicated by the indictment.

The cause was in trial for approximately one and a half months, 57 witnesses were examined, and the transcript covers nearly 3,500 pages.

A review of the evidence shows that defendants Moran and Zareone started a used-car business in San Diego in the fall of 1956, which was moved to another location with an additional partner (not here charged) in February, 1957, and that this business continued at least until the month of May thereafter. To outward appearance this was a legitimate business.

However, the evidence shows that by a systematic use of false advertising, with full knowledge of its falsity and intent to use it falsely, they induced customers to come to the used-car lot with the idea that they could purchase a car with a $5.00 down payment. This intent was made clear not only by the pattern of conduct shown through dozens of transactions produced in evidence, but was also directly testified to by a salesman who worked on the lot with these defendants and who heard instructions given at sales meetings. A fair interpretation of the evidence shows that the trial court was fully justified in believing that the advertisement was pure “come-on,” with no intent of performance or truth, and that both of these defendants over many weeks of daily work in the business were fully aware of that fact.