People v. Robertson

[414]

KNIGHT, J.

A dwelling on McKinley Street in Oakland was burglarized between the hours of 8 and 10:30 o’clock on the night of December 26, 1930, and a small amount of cash, two watches and a few articles of jewelry including a gold watch charm, representing a football, were stolen therefrom. Appellant was charged with the commission of the crime, and with two prior convictions of felony. He admitted the prior convictions, and was found guilty by a jury of the charge of burglary. The sole ground urged for reversal is insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction.

The evidence upon which the conviction was obtained was in substance as follows: About 1 o’clock on the afternoon following the burglary appellant was seen by an inspector .of the Oakland police department to enter a pawnshop in that city, wherein, according to the proprietor of the shop, he sold the stolen watch charm, and signed the bill of sale therefor as follows: “George Williams—-Hotel Adams”, which was a fictitious name and false address. Upon leaving the pawnshop he was arrested by the inspector, but later, when questioned about the matter by the officers, denied having entered the pawnshop as claimed by the inspector, or having sold therein the stolen watch charm or having signed the bill of sale therefor as claimed by the proprietor of said shop; and finally he declined to make any further statement about the matter. Exemplars of his handwriting were obtained, however, and at the trial expert testimony was introduced to show that the signature and address attached to said document were written by him. Appellant did not take the witness-stand in his own behalf, but, by the testimony of others, sought to establish an alibi. In this regard his mother, with whom he lived on Davis Street, testified that on the night of the burglary he left home between 7 and 8 o ’clock; and his sister and her husband testified that he arrived at their home on Sixtieth Street, thirty or forty blocks distant from his mother’s home, between 7:30 and 8 o’clock; that soon thereafter they drove away in their automobile and that appellant then went across the street to visit another sister. The latter testified that appellant arrived there shortly after 8 o’clock and remained “close to an hour”; and his mother testified that he returned

[415]