People v. Stokes

California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 1960 No. Crim. 3084Published

Before: Warne

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction based on the defendant's possession of recently stolen property and corroborating evidence of his false statements, and that an improper inquiry into the details of his prior convictions was not prejudicial error.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for second-degree burglary.
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to inquire into the details of the defendant's prior felony convictions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Possession alone of property stolen in a burglary is not of itself sufficient to sustain the possessor’s conviction of that burglary. There must be corroborating evidence of acts, conduct, or declarations of the accused tending to show his guilt.”

“The nature of the conviction can be identified but the details are not proper subjects of inquiry.”

WARNE, J. pro tem.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of committing the crime of burglary in the second degree. He has appealed from the judgment entered thereon.

The evidence produced at the trial discloses that a small cottage owned by the Redwood Drive-In Theatre was forcibly entered sometime between 11:30 p.m. on October 3, 1958, and the early hours of October 4, 1958. The entry was made through the back door which had been broken open. Certain clothing and a console phonograph belonging to the estate of James Per nice, deceased, were taken.

At about 4 a.m. on October 4, 1958, Andy Hertz and Brick Brown were sleeping in the former’s house trailer. Brown was awakened by the voice of someone who identified himself as “Stokes” and which voice Brown recognized as that of the appellant. The appellant then told Brown that he had a machine that he wanted to leave there and he also asked Brown if he wanted to buy some clothes which he had for sale. Hertz, who was awakened by the conversation between appellant and Brown, asked Brown who it was outside the trailer. Upon overhearing this inquiry, the appellant stated, “Why, this is Stokes.” Hertz recognized this voice which was only about 15 feet away as that of the appellant who then said he had something he wanted to leave there. Hertz instructed him not to leave anything. Shortly thereafter, Brown heard some

[782]

one dragging something and placing it up against the trailer. Thereupon Brown looked out of the window of the trailer and saw appellant getting into his maroon-colored car. The car was then heard leaving the yard.

About 5 a.m. Hertz went outside the trailer and saw a phonograph to the right of the trailer’s steps which he identified as similar to the one which was taken during the burglary. Hertz contacted the sheriff’s office and the phonograph was removed by it.

Appellant entered the Busy Bee Café between 4 and 5 a.m. on October 4, 1958, and informed McMillan, an employee, that someone had placed some clothing in his ear. At appellant’s request McMillan went with him to his car and inspected the clothing. Some of the clothes were on hangers, with cellophane bags over them. McMillan then suggested to appellant that if he did not know to whom the clothes belonged he could give them to him and he would then turn them over to the sheriff. Appellant rejected this offer and replied: “I might get in trouble if I give it to him.”

People v. Stokes

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief