People v. Morales

KERRIGAN, J.

Convicted by jury of receiving stolen goods (Pen. Code, § 496), grand theft (Pen. Code, § § 484-487), and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), and sentenced to state prison on each count, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently, defendant appeals.

[213]

Boys’ clothing, having a retail value of $250, was stolen from a children’s store in Buena Park on February 22, 1967. Shortly thereafter, defendant and a male companion were stopped by a police officer in close proximity to the shopping center where the theft had occurred. The cause for detaining defendant was totally unrelated to the theft inasmuch as the same had not yet been discovered, but was predicated on the fact that the Chevrolet station wagon being driven by defendant had no tail lights.

In the course of inspecting the ear’s exterior and investigating the motor vehicle violation, the officer noted a substantial quantity of clothing in the rear seat and observed that the various items were still marked with original sales tags. He surmised that the garments might have been stolen and inquired whether the suspects had a receipt. When they replied in the negative, both were advised as to their constitutional rights, indicated they clearly understood such rights, and stated they were willing to discuss the clothing with the officer.

Defendant’s companion claimed that the defendant purchased the apparel from one “Norwood” a short time earlier in the Mall. Defendant stated that he and his companion “chipped in” and purchased the clothing from “Norwood” for $48 in the parking lot of the Mall. Both men were then placed under arrest for suspicion of receiving stolen property.

Inasmuch as the clothing which was stolen from the children’s store was the same merchandise that was discovered in the ear in which defendant was riding at the time of his detention and arrest, the three charges arose out of the same transaction. The court instructed the jury that each count contained in the information charged a separate and distinct offense, and that the defendant could be convicted or acquitted of any or all of the offenses. (CALJIC 112.)

During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of the instructions and inquired whether an accused co3ild be fo3md guilty of grand theft and burglary and also be fo3ind guilty of receiving stolen property. The court advised the jury, in effect, that the jury could find the defendant guilty of each of the three offenses, or could acquit him as to each of the three C03ints, or find him guilty of any one or more of the three charges. The jury returned with a verdict finding the defendant guilty of all three crimes.