People v. Goldstein

DRAPER, J.

By stipulation, three counts of violation of Penal Code, section 337a, were tried to the superior court upon the transcript of the preliminary hearing. Defendant was found guilty of violation of subdivision 2 (occupying premises with paraphernalia for the purpose of recording or registering bets) and was acquitted of the charged violation of subdivision 4 (recording bets) and subdivision 6 (accepting bets). He was sentenced to one year in county jail, but execution of sentence was suspended and he was admitted to probation for two years on condition he pay a fine of $250. Defendant appeals.

Police maintained surveillance of an apartment occupied by defendant under the name of Marx. An officer standing in the hallway outside the apartment heard the telephone in the apartment ring, and heard a man’s voice answer. The conversation of the apartment’s occupant- indicated that he was receiving bets upon horse races. Shortly thereafter the same voice again answered the telephone, and this time gave a list of initials, names and amounts. The officer heard the toilet in the apartment being flushed six or seven times. A short time later, appellant left the apartment. An officer asked to talk to him, and at appellant’s invitation entered the apartment with him. Until that time, no one but appellant had entered or left the apartment, and the apartment was unoccupied when appellant and the officer entered it. The apartment contained no clothing except one pair of women’s slippers. A list of names or initials and telephone numbers, which was identified by an expert as a list of bettors, together with an “owe sheet,” were found on the kitchen table. Another “owe sheet” was found in a closet. A racing form was

[88]

in appellant's possession as he left the apartment. It appears that an “owe sheet” is a list of amounts due to and from bettors. Appellant told officers that he had flushed the records of bets down the toilet. He admitted that the “owe sheets” were his, that he had used the apartment for less than a week, that he lived elsewhere, and that the telephone in the apartment was his but was listed under the name of Marx.

Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. He relies upon

People