People v. Jackson

STONE, J.

Defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit grand theft. He appeals on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish specific intent, an essential element of the crime. In support of his contention, defendant raises two collateral issues, first, that evidence of other offenses was improperly admitted to prove the requisite intent and, second, that evidence of one of the other alleged offenses was the product of an illegal search and seizure.

Because a number of thefts had occurred at Pacific Gas & Electric ' Company substations, two officers conducted a “stake out’’ on September 21, 1966, at the substation near Los Banos. Two fences surrounded the substation, an inner chain-link fence with -a locked gate at the entrance, and a barbed-wire fence some distance beyond the chain-link fence. About 11:30 p.m. the two deputies saw defendant and one Charles Lee walking away from the substation. At the time, they were outside the chain-link fence but inside the barbed-wire fence, each then carrying an unidentified object in his hand. Upon seeing the officers, the men ran. and -after they had crossed through the barbed-wire fence the officers noted that neither had anything in his hand. The officers gave chase, and took both men into custody.

A search near the barbed-wire fence turned up a bolt cutter and a wire cutter. A lock on one of the gates in the chain link fence had been cut. An inventory of the substation property

[657]

showed that nothing had been taken, but there was property much in excess of $200 in value within the chain-link fence.

Defendant was taken to the Merced County jail where, after questioning, he told a sheriff’s lieutenant that a 1957 Dodge pickup belonging to Lee was parked on the parking lot of the Santa Nella Bar about two or three miles north of the substation. The following morning the pickup was located by a deputy sheriff. A bolt cutter found in the pickup was received in evidence, and defendant contends it was obtained by an illegal search.

To prove defendant’s intent to steal property valued at more than $200, the prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of four other similar crimes. It is conceded that defendant was not shown to have been connected to any of them. The People’s theory is that Lee, who was arrested along with defendant, was defendant’s accomplice, that defendant had the same intent as Lee, and to prove Lee’s intent evidence of other similar crimes attributed to him was introduced.