People v. Cowgill

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 1932 No. Docket No. 1184.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for theft because the title to the crops had not passed to the complaining witness, as the sale of the land and crops was a single, uncompleted escrow transaction.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for theft of crops where the underlying sale agreement was never completed.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the money not having been paid, as per agreement of the parties, no title passed either to the land or the crops.”

“the facts adduced before the jury are, in our opinion, wholly insufficient to show that appellant committed a criminal offense in harvesting and selling the grapes in question.”

PRESTON, P. J.

The defendant B. T. Cowgill was charged by an information filed by the district attorney of Merced County with the crime of grand theft. He entered a plea of not guilty and went to trial before a jury. The jury found him guilty of petit theft. A motion was made for a new trial and denied by the trial court. Defendant was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Merced County for a period of ninety days and required to pay a fine of $100. From this judgment, and the order denying a new trial, the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The charging part of the information reads: “That said B. T. Cowgill, on or about the 28th day of August, 1931, at and in the said county of Merced, state of California, and prior to the filing of this information, unlawfully took the property of John Lundquist, consisting of grapes of the value of $2'50.”

Defendant freely admits the taking of the grapes, but insists that they were his property and not the property of the complaining witness John Lundquist.

Defendant formerly owned 20 acres of land in what is known as the “Hilmer Colony”, in Merced County. This property was subject to a deed of trust of $2,000; in October, 1930, defendant sold said property to his son Bernard H. Cowgill, subject to the following indebtedness existing against the land. In this transaction it was agreed that defendant should remain in possession of the property and have all the crops produced thereon, provided defendant paid the taxes and interest on the deed of trust.

The record does not show how long the arrangement was to continue, Thereafter, defendant defaulted in the payment of the interest on the deed of trust and the holder thereof gave the usual notice of sale under foreclosure and set the day of sale for July 3, 1931. Just prior to this date (July 3, 1931), defendant, with the consent and approval of his son, entered into an agreement with the complaining witness John Lundquist, whereby defendant agreed to sell

[104]

to Lundquist one-half of the land in question, with the crops

growing thereon, for

the sum of $1500.

People v. Cowgill

AI Brief

PRESTON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief