People v. Gilbert

YORK, P. J.

By an amended complaint containing two counts, the defendants were jointly charged with the crimes of grand theft and burglary, and the defendant Cora Lee Gilbert was also charged with two prior convictions of the crime of larceny.

Upon arraignment both defendants pleaded “not guilty” to the offenses of grand theft and burglary, and defendant Gilbert admitted the prior convictions. Thereafter defendant

[934]

Wynn withdrew his plea of “not guilty” to the charge of burglary, pleaded “guilty” thereto, the court finding the offense to be burglary of the second degree, and made his application for probation, whereupon his case was continued to a later date, but the record does not disclose what disposition was made thereof.

Meanwhile defendant Gilbert went to trial before the court sitting without a jury and was found guilty of the offenses charged in both counts of the information, the court fixing the burglary charge as of the second degree. Thereafter said defendant moved for a new trial which was denied. The court ordered the sentences on the two charges to run concurrently and found there was not sufficient evidence to declare said defendant an habitual criminal.

This appeal is prosecuted by defendant Gilbert from the judgment of conviction as well as from the order denying her motion for a new trial.

Appellant urges (1) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction; (2) the court erred in permitting an officer to relate a conversation with appellant before the corpus delicti was established; and (3) the court erred in denying her motion for a new trial.

The record herein discloses that on February 24, 1943, E. Lasner, Incorporated, dealers in furs, maintained an office and showroom in downtown Los Angeles which was in charge of its manager, Leonard Baehelis, and one other employee, the company’s secretary, Lois Porter. The office was located in front and opened through an archway into a large storeroom where the. company’s stock of furs hung on racks. On the day in question, defendant Wynn called and told Mr. Baehelis he had an appointment with a furrier by the name of Crissman who was going to help Wynn select a fur coat for the latter’s wife. Crissman, who was known to Baehelis, did not keep the purported appointment and Wynn remained about an hour looking all around the showroom examining the furs accompanied by the manager Baehelis.