People v. Rutland

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1953 No. Crim. 5023Published

Before: Wood (Parker)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for grand theft where the defendant was found in possession of a recently stolen vehicle and provided an explanation that was contradicted by other incriminating evidence. The court further held that an appeal from a sentence is not authorized.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction for grand theft.
Whether the prosecution is bound by exculpatory statements made by the defendant that were introduced into evidence.
Whether an appeal from a sentence is authorized.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court was not required to accept the statements of defendant as proof. Those statements were merely a part of the evidence and they were to be considered in connection with all of the evidence in the case.”

“While the mere possession of stolen property is not alone sufficient to sustain a conviction of grand theft . . . such possession plus ‘slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances’ will suffice.”

“Since an appeal from a sentence is not authorized, the purported appeal therefrom should be dismissed.”

WOOD (Parker), J.

Defendant was convicted in a non-jury trial of the crime of grand theft of an automobile. The notice of appeal recites that defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence. Appellant contends in effect that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.

Donald P. Seitz, a witness called by the People, testified that about 1:15 p. m., on November 10, 1952, he parked his 1946 Ford automobile at a place on Wilmington Street in Los Angeles; about six minutes later he returned to where he had parked the automobile and it was not there.

Officer Teel, a witness called by the People, testified that about 2 p. m., on November 10, 1952, he saw a 1946 Ford automobile (the Seitz automobile) parked on the south side of Firestone Boulevard and slightly east of “Sunny’s Auto Wrecking”; he observed the defendant and another man get out of the automobile and go into the wrecking place; he watched the automobile until they returned and, as they drove away, he stopped them; defendant was driving; he asked defendant if the automobile was his and defendant said “No” that a fellow by the name of “Herschel,” whose last name he could not remember, lent the automobile to him for the purpose of going to a house on Florence Avenue; he (officer) then took defendant to the police station where defendant told him that Herschel lent the automobile to him in order that he might make a “contact” to sell 15 pounds of marijuana on Florence Avenue, and that he was going there when the officers stopped him. On cross-examination the officer testified that defendant told them that he could take them to Herschel ; he (officer) told defendant he would let him talk to another officer and see what arrangements could be made; it was

[800]

strictly a marijuana deal and was not in Ms line of investigation.

Another witness, called by the People, testified that he was “Parts” manager of Sunny’s Automobile Parts Salvage; on November 10, 1952, defendant came into his place of business, said he was going into the Army and wanted to sell the tires and battery of his Ford automobile; he (witness) told defendant he did not buy loose parts and asked defendant what he would sell the complete automobile for; defendant said it was a ’46 Ford, and he would sell it for $250; the witness said that was too high, and then the defendant left.

People v. Rutland

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief