People v. Franco

California Court of Appeal Nov 10, 1926 No. Docket No. 1338.Published

Before: Tyler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a showcase located in a building's basement stairway, covered by the building's roof, constitutes part of the store for purposes of the burglary statute. It further held that the trial court's error in restricting impeachment of a witness was harmless because the witness's testimony was cumulative and unnecessary for conviction.

Issues

Whether a showcase located outside a store but under the same roof constitutes a 'house' or 'store' under the burglary statute.
Whether the trial court's refusal to allow impeachment of a prosecution witness regarding a prior felony conviction constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“They are therefore in legal effect part of the store proper and the entry of the place where they are situated must be held a sufficient entry to constitute the statutory offense.”

“This, no doubt, was error, but it was not of the character that justifies a reversal of the case.”

[683]

TYLER, P. J.

Defendant was charged by information with the crime of burglary. He was tried and convicted. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. This appeal is from the judgment and order.

The evidence established the following facts: One H, R. Schueker was operating a shoe store in the city of Fresno. The store was situated in the basement of the building known as 1047% Fulton Street. In order to enter the store it was necessary to proceed down some stairs leading from the sidewalk to the store proper.. Along the walls and sides of the stairway some five showcases had been installed in which were displayed numerous pairs of shoes. On the night of February 19, 1926, the lock on one of these showcases was broken open and six pairs of shoes taken therefrom. Early in the morning of the following day defendant rented a room under an assumed name at a certain hotel in Fresno, at which time he left a box containing the stolen shoes with the proprietor. Later in the morning, accompanied by one Nick Rodriquez, he appeared at the hotel and asked that the box be delivered to him. In the meantime the police officers of Fresno had ascertained that the box was at the hotel and á detective had stationed himself at the door thereof for the purpose of apprehending defendant. Rodriquez left the hotel with the box in his possession and proceeded to enter an automobile when he was arrested. Immediately afterward defendant was also taken into custody. They were brought before the assistant district attorney and questioned. Defendant admitted that Rodriquez was in- no manner implicated in the affair and had merely agreed to take the box to the express office for the purpose of having it shipped. Rodriquez was subsequently released from custody. At the time of his arrest defendant had a tire iron on his person which was capable of being used to commit the offense charged. Defendant offered no evidence in his own behalf. He was convicted of burglary in the second degree. In support of this appeal it is first urged that as there was no internal communication between the display cases and the store proper, the cases were not a part of the store, and that consequently there was no entry of the store proven which would bring the offense within the contemplation of the statute defining

[684]

People v. Franco

AI Brief

TYLER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief