People v. Zabriski

California Court of Appeal Nov 7, 1933 No. Docket No. 2445.Published

Before: Archbald

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for violating the California Vehicle Act, as the defendant's flight and false statements regarding his involvement and relationship with his co-defendant demonstrated consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the court held that any variance between the alleged and proven ownership of the vehicle was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.
Whether a material variance existed between the allegations of ownership of the automobile and the proof.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While the possession of stolen property alone is not sufficient to raise an inference of guilt, such possession under the circumstances shown here, coupled with the denials of both parties that they knew each other or had been in the ear, and their flight from the car, sufficiently justified the conclusion of guilt reached by the jury.”

“False statements intended to conceal connection with criminal acts tend to show consciousness of guilt”

“Regardless, however, of the question of ownership, it was sufficient to show, as the evidence in this case does, that appellant was not the owner”

ARCHBALD, J.,

pro tem

Defendants were jointly charged by information with grand theft, in count I thereof, and a violation of section 146 of the California Vehicle Act, in count II. Both counts involved the taking of an automobile alleged to belong to one Julius Sloto. Zabriski pleaded guilty to count II, and Miklauschutz was tried before a' jury which returned verdicts of not guilty as to count I and guilty as to count II. From the judgment entered on such verdict of guilty defendant Miklauschutz has appealed.

It is urged: (1) that the evidence does not support the verdict; (2) that a material variance exists between the

[171]

allegations of ownership of the automobile taken and the proof.

(1) The evidence shows that the automobile in question was taken from the driveway of its owner, in which it was parked, some time after 8 P. M. of May 2, 1933; that at about 6 A. M. of the next morning the witness Morgan saw the same car being driven at a reckless and excessive speed; that the machine swerved and crashed into two ears parked at the side of the street, and that immediately afterwards Zabriski got out of the car and began to run, followed by appellant about half a minute later. Morgan followed and caught appellant, throwing him to the ground, where they struggled together until two officers arrived and took the latter into custody. Zabriski was later found and arrested. Morgan told the officers that appellant had “hit a couple of automobiles”, to which appellant replied, “It ain’t so, I never done anything; I haven’t even been in or near a car”. The witness Wallior testified that he heard the crash and immediately went to the spot; that Zabriski got out one side of the car and started to go across the street “at a fast gait,” and that “it took him (appellant) a few seconds to slide over under the steering wheel and get out,” at which time appellant “started to cross the street, too”; that he asked where they were going and appellant replied that “they were just leaving.” The witness then, according to his testimony, informed the men that “they could not go; they wrecked some cars and had to stay there,” to which appellant replied that he was not in the car and did not know Zabriski. The latter also denied being in the wreck. Thereupon Wallior called to a man near by to “call a policeman,” and when he looked around both defendants “must have run, because . . . they were both gone up the street, up the block.”

People v. Zabriski

AI Brief

ARCHBALD, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief