People v. Melandrez

GRAY, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

[398]

1. The information in appropriate language charged the defendant with the stealing of a horse in the county of Riverside and thereafter feloniously bringing the said horse into the county of Los Angeles. The proof taken at the trial shows that the horse stolen was a mare. The first point urged for reversal is the variance, as to the sex of the animal, between the proof and the information. This question is settled adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of

People

v.

Pico,

62 Cal. 52, wherein it was held that the word “horse” in section 487, subdivision 3, of the Penal Code, is used in its generic sense and includes all animals of the horse species, whether male or female, and that the legislature of this state in using the word “mare,” also, in the same section did not intend to modify or change the common-law rule, “but inserted the word possibly for more definiteness. ’ ’

2. Nor can we agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. In addition to the evidence showing without conflict that the defendant exercised actual control and ownership over the mare in question in the county of Los Angeles, and that the same had been prior to its being impounded actually in the possession of the defendant in said Los Angeles county, declarations, conversations and conduct of the defendant in connection with the disposition of the mare all indicate guilty knowledge and tend to show a consciousness that he had obtained possession of the animal by criminal means. The fact of his guilt does not rest alone upon the possession of a stolen animal, but the fact that the animal was originally stolen and did not stray away and that defendant was directly connected with the original larceny of the animal in another county is substantiated by the facts that he sold the animal for almost nothing, that he made a false statement as to the period of time during which he had owned her, and that he admitted that the witness Miranda had betrayed him. In admitting this betrayal he did not deny that he had placed himself in a situation to be betrayed, but all his language and conduct seems to admit his guilt. If we were to concede that the witness Miranda was an accomplice, still his testimony showing defendant’s guilt was amply corroborated by the declarations of the defendant himself made in the presence of the officers.