People v. Deyot
Before: Houser
[54]
HOUSER, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of embezzlement and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The only point on which appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Prom the record it appears that defendant had a contract or an option with certain stockholders of a corporation to sell their stock therein for a price of approximately $200,000, for which service defendant was to receive a fixed amount in cash and stock in the corporation; that in preparing to make such sale defendant apparently required some assistance in the way of ready cash, and in order to acquire same, or a portion thereof, he entered into a contract with one Marie Taylor by which, among other things, defendant agreed “that in consideration of Marie Taylor’s syndicating with him and investing the sum of $3,000
to assist in financing and acquiring a valuable interest
with said company, he will return the investment of $3000 within twelve months from date, with interest at seven per cent per annum, and will cause to be issued, as the office of the Corporation Commissioner of California may direct, to said Marie Taylor by the Columbia Cement Company, not less than $12,000 common stock at par, ...”
Although the prosecuting witness testified in substance that she gave the $3,000 to defendant for the purpose of making an “investment,” or for the purchase of “a valuable interest,” and that the $3,000 was to be returned to her at the end of one year, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum, together with not less than $12,000' in stock of the corporation, nevertheless the evidence shows that a part only of the $3,000 was repaid to the prosecuting witness, and that she received none of the stock of the corporation. Her testimony as to whether such “valuable interest” was to be acquired in her behalf, or for defendant personally, included the following:
“Q. Mrs. Taylor, did he say he was going to give you the interest, the valuable interest in the company, that he was to purchase? A. No. . . .
“Q. Was anything said by Mr. Deyot that you were to have that interest? A. No. He was to give me $12,000 worth of stock. . . .
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)