People v. O'Keefe (1921) · DecisionDepot

People v. O'Keefe

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 25, 1921 No. Crim. No. 819.Published

Before: Conret

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for burglary on the first count, as the mere possession of stolen property long after the crime, combined with unrelated circumstantial evidence, failed to prove guilt.

Issues

Whether a verdict of guilty on two counts of burglary is defective when the evidence is insufficient to support one of the counts.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary based on the possession of stolen property and other circumstantial evidence.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict against the defendant on the first count.”

“While possession of the stolen property is not of itself sufficient evidence of the guilt of the party in whose possession it is found, still the recent possession, unexplained, is a very strong circumstance”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CONRET, P. J.

Appeal from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

[1]

The information is in two counts. The first count charges that on or about the twenty-third day of December, 1920, the defendant unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously entered a certain dwelling-house in the city of Taft, with the intention then and there to commit the crime of larceny. The second count charges a similar entry of the same house on or about the first day of January, 1921. The verdict of the jury, without particular designation of either count, found the defendant guilty of burglary in the first degree. The judgment, after reciting that the defendant was duly convicted of “the crime of felony, to wit, burglary in two counts,” ordered that the defendant be punished by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California “for an indeterminate period for the crime of burglary in the first degree.”

Appellant contends that the verdict is defective in this, that it cannot be ascertained therefrom upon which of the counts the jury rendered its verdict, and that this is prejudicial to him for the reason that the verdict cannot pos

[651]

sibly be supported on the second count. Appellant claims— and in this we agree with him—that there is no evidence to show that the burglary charged in the second count was committed in the night-time. This being so, a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of burglary in the first degree, as charged in the second count, could not be justified by the evidence.

We are of the opinion that the verdict as rendered was a verdict of guilty on both counts. Under section 954 of the Penal Code, the indictment or information may charge two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses. “The defendant may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged, and each offense upon which the defendant is convicted must be stated in the verdict.” Since evidence was received concerning both charges, and both were submitted to the jury,- we think that the verdict in the form in which it was rendered was a verdict of guilty on both counts.

[2]

People v. O'Keefe

AI Brief

Synopsis

CONRET, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief