People v. Enterante

CRAIG, J.

By separate informations the appellant was charged with robbery, and with receiving stolen property, and having been found guilty of the former, he appealed.

Said information alleged that Joe Enterante, Fred Hayes and Earl Bucher wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously robbed one Mary Lewis of jewelry of the value of $5,100, in the county of Los Angeles. It is contended that the evidence fell short of that required to bring his case within the provisions of section 31 of the Penal Code. Said "section reads: “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, or whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet in its commission, or not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, are principals in the crime so committed.” The direct testimony of the People’s witnesses revealed that three strange men entered the home of Mrs. Lewis after she had retired; that they were armed, and one was disguised; that a companion of the complaining witness was struck down, after which two entered the bedroom of the latter and pointing a revolver at her, stated: “We happen to know that you have diamonds ... we will find the rings”; that if she made a noise they would “fill her full of lead”; and that through fear of bodily harm she revealed the whereabouts of her diamond rings, which

[439]

Enterante took. Shortly before the robbery occurred, Hayes and Enterante were called on the telephone by Bucher, at their home, and they left immediately; upon their return on the same evening they had the rings in question, Bucher again telephoned, joined them at said house, received said jewelry, and removed the stones therefrom. When so doing appellant remarked, the rings “are too strong evidence; we can’t help it; we will have to throw them away”. On the following day appellant stated that he had borrowed $50 on one and had given Enterante $30 thereof. At the time of the robbery one of the men stated to Mrs. Lewis that they had been misinformed as to the amount and value of her jewelry, and when they were together he again accused the appellant of having given him misinformation regarding its value, and stated: “I thought they had some money, and diamonds worth some money,” to which the appellant replied that he had previously inquired and had been informed that the same “was worth $4,000 or !$5,000”. Bucher thereafter stated that he had realized $400 on the diamonds. It appeared that the appellant had theretofore asked the Lewises as to the value of their jewelry, and had stated that they might be robbed some night; that he denied to them any knowledge of the robbery, after having discussed it with the attendant of an oil station. As previously observed, the complaining witness had not previously to the time of their nocturnal call lmown either of the invaders. Yet the appellant some time thereafter informed her that he might recover her diamonds for $500. It seems unnecessary to recite extensively from the evidence in order to show its sufficiency, since its weight and value became the controlling factor. “It is declared by the Penal Code that the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated, and that all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or,