People v. Anderson

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand theft and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Briefly, the facts relating to the transaction upon which the prosecution of defendant was predicated were that defendant falsely represented to a foreman of the owner of certain hay that defendant was acting as a purchasing agent for “F. F. Fuller & Co.” and thereby induced the owner of the hay to deliver its possession unto defendant; and thereupon, acting for himself, defendant sold the hay to a third person and refused to pay the original owner therefor.

Appellant’s first specification of error relates to the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury certain instructions requested by defendant, among which was one to the effect that, unless by the evidence the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the hay in question exceeded the sum of $200, even though all the remaining elements of the crime were established, defendant was entitled to an acquittal on the charge of grand theft, and could be convicted of no greater offense than that of petty theft. In that connection, it satisfactorily appears that the only evidence in the case relating to the value of the hay showed that it was reasonably worth at least the sum of $250. Since no evidence was introduced by either party which tended to prove that the hay was worth less than $200, the proposed instruction had no application to the facts and hence was properly refused. The point is illustrated in the case of

People

v.

Comyns,

114 Cal. 107, 110 [45 Pac. 1034, 1035], where the court said: “ ... If, for

[43]

example, but a single article had been stolen, a diamond, and the only evidence in the ease was that the diamond greatly exceeded in value the sum of fifty dollars (as then provided by statute), some force would appear in the argument that the defendant, if the jury believed he stole that article, was guilty of the crime of grand larceny,

and some reason would appear in justification of the court’s refusal under such circumstances to submit to their consideration the lesser offense.