People v. Lombardi

HERNDON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of a violation of section 459 of the Penal Code involving burglary of a motor vehicle. Appellant assigns only two errors:' (1) that the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti and therefore that evidence of appellant’s extrajudicial admissions was improperly admitted; and (2) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury fully as to its duties.

The first assignment is patently without merit. The corpus delicti is established when it has been proven that the crime charged was .committed; and proof that the crime was committed by the defendant is not required.

(People

v.

Brooks,

154 Cal.App.2d 631, 634 [316 P.2d 435];

People

v.

Cobb,

45 Cal.2d 158, 161 [287 P.2d 752].) The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence and inferences fairly and reasonably deducible therefrom. Direct or positive evidence is not essential; slight or prima facie evidence is sufficient.

(People

v.

Burnham,

194 Cal.App.2d 836, 840 [15 Cal.Rptr. 596].) Prima facie proof of the corpus delicti having been made, extrajudicial statements, admissions and confessions of a defendant may be considered in determining

[805]

whether all elements of the crime have been established.

(People

v.

Cooper,

53 Cal.2d 755, 765 [3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 964].)

The victim, Robert C. Laird, testified clearly and definitely that the vehicle involved was locked when he and his wife left it in the parking lot of a grocery store. Their pedigreed dog was left in the locked car. No one was given permission to enter the car or take anything from it. When he returned to the car after their shopping, the doors were unlocked, the wind wing on the driver’s side was broken, small particles of broken glass were near the locking device, and the dog was missing. This testimony amply meets the requirements for establishing the corpus delicti here involved, i.e., the entry by someone into a vehicle when the doors of such vehicle are locked, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny. (Pen. Code, § 459.) By a process of reasoning which we are unable to follow, appellant relies upon