People v. Huntsman

HAHN, J.,

pro tem.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction upon an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County, charging him with the crime of “possession of a still,” and from an order denying his motion for a new trial of the action. In urging a reversal of the judgment, appellant presents the following grounds:

1. That the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.

2.

Errors committed by the court in connection with certain rulings made during the trial.

3'. Errors committed by the court in the giving of certain instructions to the jury.

4. That Act 3795 (Stats. 1927, p. 497), known as the “Still Act,” is uneonstitutionál.

It is undisputed that the officers who arrested the defendant found a complete still at No. 4234 Los Nietos Drive, but defendant denies any knowledge of the existence of the still or that he was in any way responsible for its maintenance, although he admits that he is the owner of the property where the still was found.

The evidence bearing upon the disputed question is mainly circumstantial, and while the evidence of the state

[9]

connecting the defendant with the still is not as strong as in most eases that come before ns for review, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to justify the inference necessarily involved in the verdict, that the defendant either owned or had some interest in maintaining the still. To recite and review the evidence in detail would extend this opinion to an unwarranted length. We feel that it will meet the requirements of the case to simply indicate that, in our opinion, appellant’s contention that the evidence fails to support the verdict is not well taken.

In connection with the second point, appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his objection to the questions asked by the prosecuting attorney of the witness R. F. Ogburn, who was a clerk in the employ of the Southern California Gas Company. These questions called for and elicited evidence as to the amopnt of gas consumed from September, 1927, to February, 1928, upon the premises where the still was found. Also, the witness, over the objection of appellant, was permitted to testify that the account with the Gas Company stood in the name of J. B. O’Malley. There was evidence that the defendant had acquired the property in question in the name of O’Malley. In fact, he so admitted in his own testimony. We are of the opinion that the testimony objected to was properly admitted, in that it tended to meet the issue raised as to the ownership and occupation of the premises where the still was found.