People v. Jehl

DRAPER, J.

Defendant was charged by indictment with four felony counts, as follows:

1. Conspiracy with Sam Miaño to violate section 67 of the Penal Code (giving or offering bribes to executive officers).

2. Conspiracy with Sam Miaño to violate section 518 of the Penal Code (extortion).

3. Conspiracy with Bartolme Losada to violate section 330 of the Penal Code (gaming).

4. Conspiracy with Meredith Nice to violate section 330 of the Penal Code (gaming).

A jury found him guilty on all four counts and he was sentenced to prison, the terms to run concurrently. He appeals.

The action against Miaño (counts 1 and 2) was dismissed under Penal Code, section 1099, and he became a principal witness for the prosecution. The first two counts are related. That charging extortion concerns establishment of a protection racket involving operation of pinball machines in Santa

[668]

Cruz County. The bribery count involves amounts paid by Miaño to appellant in connection with the protection racket. There is evidence involving Charles L. Moore, Jr., then District Attorney of Santa Cruz County, although it is not contended that any bribe was actually accepted by him.

Miaño, an operator of pinball machines, testified that appellant told him that there was a new district attorney, that Miaño’s machines were illegal, that he would have to pay for the right to continue in operation, and that he should secure specified amounts from Moneovich, Riggs and Cooper, other pinball operators, and pay to appellant the total, $4,000. Miaño paid this sum to appellant and attempted, by threats made both by himself and appellant, to force the others to contribute. These occurrences, extending over a period of months, were punctuated by occasional seizing of machines and by inspections of machines by the district attorney or his employees. Riggs and Moneovich refused to make any payment for protection.

Appellant does not deny that the testimony of Miaño, if believed, shows conspiracy to bribe and to extort. He does contend that there is insufficient corroboration of this testimony. Clearly, Miaño was an accomplice. As such, his uncorroborated testimony will not support the conviction. The testimony of Riggs and Moneovich amply corroborates that of Miaño. Appellant does not controvert this view, but argues that they, too, are accomplices. The testimony of one accomplice cannot serve to corroborate that of another