People v. Richmond

MARKS, Acting P. J.

Appellant is accused by an information filed by the district attorney of Fresno County of the crime of burglary, alleged to have been committed on the nineteenth day of October, 1931, by entering the Fort Washington School in Fresno County with intent to commit the crime of theft therein. He was found guilty as charged and judgment was pronounced upon him. His motion for new trial was denied, as well as a motion in arrest of judgment.

The evidence discloses that some time between about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of Sunday, the eighteenth day of October, 1931, and 8:30 o ’clock in the morning of the next day, a pump-house on the school grounds was broken into and an electric motor taken therefrom. The motor had attached to it a brass plate with a serial number stamped into it and was painted black when last seen in the pump-house. Several months later a motor, similar to the one taken from the pump-house, was found in the possession of appellant at a service station which he was operating at Auberry in Fresno County. This motor had a coat of blue

[540]

paint covering a coat of black, and the brass plate bearing the serial number had been removed.

Appellant maintains that there was no sufficient evidence in the record identifying the motor found in his possession as that taken from the pump-house on the Fort Washington School grounds. We have examined the record carefully and do not deem it necessary to set forth in detail the evidence on this question. We are satisfied that the evidence of the identity of the motor was sufficient to require the trial court to submit the matter to the jury. At least one witness tesified that the motor in the possession of appellant was the one taken from the Fort Washington School pump-house.

The direct evidence which connected appellant with the crime of burglary was furnished by Lester Linville. He testified that he participated in the commission of the crime. Appellant maintains that there is no sufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of Linville, an admitted accomplice, to support the judgment against him. In this we cannot agree with him. He was found in possession of the stolen motor from which the brass plate, bearing its serial number by which it could have been identified, had been removed. The motor had been painted blue and a can which formerly had contained blue paint of the exact color of that, on the motor was observed on a shelf near the stolen motor in appellant’s service station. It has been x*epeatedly held in California that circumstances such as these furnish sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice to support a judgment of conviction.