People v. Tannehill

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 1960 No. Crim. 6655Published

Before: Kincaid

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for burglary and grand theft, and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its jury instructions regarding possession of stolen property or the distinction between admissions and confessions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the judgment of conviction.
Whether the jury instruction regarding possession of stolen property was misleading.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of a confession when the defendant only made admissions.

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, but must be corroborated by evidence of acts, conduct, or declarations tending to show guilt.”

“Possession of stolen property, coupled with false statements as to the manner in which the property came into defendant’s possession, may be sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of burglary.”

“The evidence is amply sufficient to support the judgment; the instructions given were correct as a matter of law”

KINCAID, J. pro tern.

By information appellant Phil L. Tannehill and his codefendant Hubert Junior Walker were jointly charged with the crimes of burglary and grand theft. Count I charged the crime of burglary in that said defendants on or about the 12th of June, 1958, did enter the residence of Bessie Loo with the intent to unlawfully and feloniously commit theft. Count II charged them with commission of the crime of grand theft in that they did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take personal property of a value of $2,571, being the property of Bessie Loo. The information likewise charged Tannehill with prior convictions of escape and violation of section 503 (now 10851) of the Vehicle Code. Tannehill admitted both prior convictions.

Following jury trial appellant Tannehill and codefendant

[404]

Walker were convicted of burglary, first degree, count I and grand theft, count II. Tannehill’s motion for new trial was denied and he alone appeals from the judgment and from the order denying new trial.

Briefly the facts show the home of Mrs. Loo was burglarized on the night of June 12, 1958. Numerous items of personal property were taken, including a diamond ring, several valuable furs, four suitcases, silverware and a blue Chinese-style dress with high mandarin collar. Several of these items were received in evidence and were identified by Mrs. Loo including one suitcase with her initials “B.S.L.” printed thereon and a mink stole into the lining of which her same initials were embroidered.

A neighbor of Mrs. Loo returned to her home about 11:30 p.m., June 12th, and saw a light green automobile with a Texas license parked across the street from the Loo home with two young men of slight build in the automobile.

Witness Joanne Brito testified that she met Tannehill and Walker in May 1958 and saw them together about 10 times prior to the middle of June, 1958. In June, about the 12th, 13th or 14th, at about 11:30 p.m., they brought five suitcases to her apartment and asked her if they could leave them until the next day. She consented. They then gave her a Chinese-type blue sheath dress with mandarin collar. It proved to be too small for her and she later gave it away. Defendants removed the five suitcases from the apartment the next day.

People v. Tannehill

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief