People v. Hurst

SPENCE, J.

Defendant was charged with petty theft and a prior conviction of a felony. He entered a plea of not guilty but admitted the prior conviction. After a waiver of a jury trial, he was tried by the court sitting without a jury, was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

The proceedings upon the trial were very informal as is frequently the case when a jury trial is waived. The entire

[64]

transcript of the testimony consists of but nine pages. The prosecution read certain testimony from the transcript of the preliminary hearing and a police inspector testified. Defendant did not take the stand and he offered no testimony. Both sides rested and after the court declared defendant guilty, defendant’s counsel waived time for sentence and replied in the negative when asked if there was any legal cause why judgment should not be imposed. Defendant’s counsel did request, however, a reference to the probation officer for investigation and the request was granted. When the cause was again called several weeks later, the motion for probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the state prison. After sentence was imposed, defendant’s counsel made a motion for new trial but subsequently withdrew said motion. The appeal from the judgment of conviction followed.

The evidence shows that on February 25, 1939, an overnight bag of the complaining witness, containing wearing apparel and toilet articles, was left in a locked automobile. The automobile was broken into and the bag was stolen during the absence of the complaining witness. Defendant was arrested later the same day while in the act of breaking into another automobile. The bag of the complaining witness was found in the room of the defendant. On the following day, defendant confessed that he had broken into the car of the complaining witness and had stolen the bag in question.

Defendant contends that “The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict for the reason that the purported confession is inadmissible. ’ ’ In this connection, defendant points to certain testimony of the officers which indicates that they had told defendant, immediately before he confessed, that if “he cleaned up all the complaint”, they did not care if he had “pulled a hundred jobs”, he “would be booked on one charge, just one charge”. Such inducement on the part of the officers was improper and would have been sufficient, if timely objection had been made in the trial court, to render the confession inadmissible.