People v. Allen

California Court of Appeal Oct 8, 1952 No. Crim. 4844Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a person operating a 'relay spot' for telephone messages used to facilitate bookmaking is a principal in the crime, and that evidence of such telephonic conversations is admissible to establish the character of the premises.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for pool selling and bookmaking where the defendant operated a relay spot for bets.
Whether telephonic conversations received at the defendant's premises were admissible as evidence of the character of the business conducted there.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The facts adequately prove that the relay spot and appellant were integral parts of a bookmaking operation.”

“If the relay spot is an integral part of a bookmaking operation, then all calls to it and all calls from it for the purpose of completing a bet on a horse race establish the character of business in which the relay premises are engaged.”

[594]

MOORE, P. J.

Convicted of pool selling and bookmaking (Pen. Code, § 337a, subd. 1) defendant demands a reversal of the judgment on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence and error in the admission of certain telephonic conversations.

Appellant was the sole occupant of a two-room apartment on North Ardmore Street in the west side of Los Angeles. When four police officers called there they found the sheets of a metropolitan daily newspaper scattered over the bed, a telephone on the night table and some pieces of scratch paper on the floor. After Officer Poster had answered a number of telephone rings, Miss Stockley, a secretary of the Hollywood police station, entered and assumed the task of answering the telephone which rang 11 times during her 30 minutes’ visit. The following is a transcript of her testimony with reference to the telephone.

“The Witness : The first time I picked up the phone a party said, ‘This is Laura. He never did call me.’

“I said, ‘right.’ She then hung up. . . .

“The next time the phone rang a woman said, ‘Betty, Dunkirk 30886,’ and hung up.

“The next time the phone rang the party said, ‘Yes, Sunset,’ and then hung up.

“The next time the phone rang a party said, ‘This is Cliff at Dunkirk 7-0378.’

“In the following conversation a man answered, and he said, ‘99,’ and hung up.

“The following man said, ‘O.B. for Red,’ and hung up.

“The following man said, ‘Tex, Normandy 2-0818. Have them call me right back,’ and hung up.

“The next party said, ‘Oregon at Dunkirk 7-0729,’ and hung up. ^

“The next party said, ‘Ken.’ I told him that the other end of the line was dead; we were taking them there.

“He said, ‘One to win on 3 in the fifth at Downs,’ and hung up.

“The next party called and said, ‘Curly, Dunkirk 2-0319.’ I told them that the other line was dead; we were taking them there; what would he have. And he then gave me four Churchill Downs to win, $4 parlay to Jet Ace in the fifth, Golden Gate $2 daily double Kings Boy to Alibi and $2 daily double of Kings Boy to Shadow Count.

People v. Allen

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief