People v. Griffith

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment based upon a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of a violation of section 476 of the Penal Code (uttering a fictitious cheek) and from the order denying a new trial. On February 8, 1959, appellant was staying in the Mayflower Hotel in San Francisco with his codefendant, Lorraine Lawson, where they had been living as husband and wife for some time. While in the Mayflower Hotel Lorraine wrote a number of checks drawn on a bank in Auburn with which she had no account. These checks she passed at grocery stores in the neighborhood. A police investigation began. Appellant and Lorraine saw policemen who were making inquiries at the hotel. They hid their luggage in the basement and left the hotel. They did not return. They met with friends at a restaurant in San Francisco and from there came to Napa in an automobile owned and driven by one Willie Myers. They arrived February 10th around midnight. They had a few dollars in money. Appellant was unemployed. Enroute appellant stated that he was going to assume the name of Clifford Stafford for use in Napa. The two stayed at the home of Willie Myers in Napa until February 12th when they rented a house under the name of Stafford. They agreed to pay rent in advance but appellant offered the lessor a postdated cheek, declaring that funds would be available the first of the week when their money would be transferred from a bank in Washington. He told the lessor they had just moved from Washington where he had been employed at the Kaiser Steel Company and that he was being transferred to their plant in Napa. He said he was a structural engineer. These statements were false. He had not lived in Washington since 1947; had not been employed by Kaiser Steel Company and never had been an engineer. The two moved into the house February 12th and had some furniture moved into it. On February 12th, appellant told Willie Myers that he needed a ear and was told that one could be obtained from a Mr. Farmer and that Farmer would hold a postdated check for him. About 11 p. m. on the night of February 12th, Willie Myers took the appellant and Lorraine to the home of Farmer. He introduced appellant as Clifford Stafford per the latter’s

[718]

instructions, and appellant told Parmer he needed a car that night because his car had broken down near Woodland. He said he had been coming from Washington to work for the Kaiser Steel Company in Napa. He negotiated with Parmer for the purchase of a used automobile. After a while, Lorraine was brought into the Parmer home and introduced as Stafford’s wife. She joined in negotiations for the purchase of the car. After some talk about paying for the car by check, Lorraine declared she had left her check book at the new home and asked Parmer to come with them to get it. The two then drove Parmer to their new home and there Lorraine showed Parmer the furniture they had put in the house, telling him that they had given the man a retainer for the house but that it was not quite finished yet. She introduced one Gary Gustin to Parmer as her nephew, saying that he was going to college. They asked Parmer to hold the check for the car, one of the reasons being to permit appellant to sell a house located in the north and have the money from this alleged sale transferred to Napa. In fact appellant had no money coming from such a source and did not then own a home as described. Lorraine also told Parmer she had purchased a considerable amount of furniture, did not know exactly how much she had in her checking account and gave this as an additional reason why she wanted the check held. She asked permission to postdate the check, but Parmer refused and the check was dated the day of the purchase contract. Appellant signed the purchase order himself and directed that the car be placed in his name, in which Lorraine concurred. Lorraine also talked of a property settlement with her former husband from which she would obtain money. It was shown that the divorce had occurred 18 years before and that at that time full property settlement had been incorporated into the divorce decree. Both Lorraine and appellant were arrested and charged with a violation of section 476a of the Penal Code, and with a violation of section 476 of said code. Lorraine pleaded guilty to the violation of section 476a and was given a county jail sentence. She testified at the trial herein. The check was dishonored. It appeared that Lorraine had never had an account in the bank on which the cheek had been drawn, either under the name of Lorraine Lawson or under the name of Stafford, which name she used in signing the cheek. With the exception of a few moments, appellant was present with Lorraine in all