People v. Acosta

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of possession of a still, a felony, and was sentenced to imprisonment at Folsom. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

It appears from the evidence that on January 7, 1931, certain officers raided a house in San Bernardino, California, and found therein a still and coil which were still warm, a hydrometer (an instrument usually used to measure the content of alcohol in liquor), a quantity of intoxicating liquor and several barrels of mash. The barrels of mash were sitting in an excavation below the floor, and were covered by the floor-board, which had been loosened. When the officers entered the house, between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening, they found Mr. and Mrs. Moreno in bed in one of the bedrooms and a Mr. Bejarano in bed in another bedroom. All of these parties denied having anything to do with the still. Moreno testified that he had been promised work at picking oranges by a man named Rivera, and that Rivera told him he could live in his house, rent free. He

[105]

had been living there some two weeks before the raid. Bejarano testified that he had come to San Bernardino to look for work and had slept in the house three nights, being absent in the daytime in his search for employment. Moreno testified that Rivera and this appellant had been making liquor in the house on the morning of January 7, 1931; that on the evening of January 7th he saw the appellant working with the still; and that “they made liquor”. A police officer testified that some days later he took Rivera into the presence of Moreno and Bejarano and asked them if this was the man who had the still in the house, to which both answered “no”. They were then confronted with this appellant and both said.he was the man who had the still there. Moreno was tried jointly with this appellant, was found guilty and released on probation, and has not appealed. Bejarano was held to-answer on the same charge, but on motion of the district attorney, the charge was dismissed as to him on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

While appellant concedes that the evidence is sufficient to show that he had possession of the still in question, his first contention is that this evidence is largely that of Moreno, Mrs. Moreno and Bejarano; that they wnre all accomplices; - and that their testimony is not sufficiently corroborated under the provisions of section 1111 of the Penal Code.