In Re Taylor
Before: Works
WORKS, J.
Petitioner is detained by the sheriff of Los Angeles County under commitment made pursuant to an order binding her to answer to a charge of receiving stolen goods. Petitioner contends that she is imprisoned without probable cause. Section 496 of the Penal Code fastens the crime of receiving stolen goods upon “Every person who for his own gain, or to prevent the owner from again possessing Ms property, buys or receives any personal property, knowing the same to have been stolen.” The point made by petitioner is that she was committed without evidence showing that an article received by -her, a certain watch, was taken with guilty knowledge.
[253]
The evidence before the committing magistrate showed that the watch in question, along with a considerable number of other articles of jewelry, was taken by robbers from a manager of a “loan association.” Upon an occasion after the robbery three peace officers, Cahill, Peoples, and Sweesey, called upon petitioner at the apartment which was her place of residence. The testimony of these men, given in the order in which their names are set forth above, contains the only evidence bearing upon the point presented by petitioner. Cahill was asked who conducted the conversation with petitioner which ensued upon their call at her apartment. He answered: “I was the one that done the first questioning.” He then proceeded: “Deputy Sheriff Peoples was immediately present. I dare say Mr. Sweesey was in the other room at the time. ... I asked the defendant if she had any jewelry that had been left her by Jimmie Blanton, and she said, ‘What is it all about? Tell me something.’ And I said, ‘Well, you are evidently very conversant with what we are trying to get you to help us in.’ I said, ‘We are looking for the jewelry that you have in your possession,’ and I said, ‘The easier way is the better way, and we would solicit at this time your co-operation and expedite matters, if the jewelry is here, and save us the trouble of going about and searching for it.’ I said, ‘We know, or feel that we know where Jimmie is.’ I said, ‘Did you have a telegram from San Francisco with regard to his coming to-day?’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘I know they are out of the city and due to-day. ’ I said, ‘ Then, what became of the jewelry that Jimmie gave you?’ She said, ‘It is not here.’ Then I said, ‘Now, I am going to appeal to you again to lend us your co-operation.’ I said, ‘We are certainly working diligently on this case, and we want to expedite matters, and if you have the jewelry hidden in this house, kindly turn it over and cause us less trouble in searching.’ She said, ‘No, it is not here.’ Then I said, ‘Will you take us to where it is? Is it in a safety deposit box?’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘I am not saying.’ I said, ‘Then what is Jimmie to you?’ She said, ‘He is my husband.’ And I said, ‘Then do you expect him to-day?’ And she said, ‘Well, I am expecting him.’ . . . Peoples was present during that conversation. Then we started to look through the dresser drawers. I said, ‘If you don’t go about and
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)