People v. Carrow

LANGDON, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property. The information also charged that in the state of Kansas, prior to the commission of said, offense, defendant had been convicted of a felony. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged and also that he had suffered a prior conviction. In accordance with the provisions of the statute (sec. 1168, Pen. Code), defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed by law.

Upon appeal, defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. It is conceded that defendant was in possession of the property in question and that it had been stolen. The general conduct of defendant, including his admission that he knew it was “hot” (meaning that he knew the property had been stolen), together with the fact that the property was found under a clod of dirt in the front yard of defendant’s residence, where he admitted he had concealed it, were sufficient indications of knowledge of the fact on the part of defendant that the property had been stolen.

It is also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict as to the charge of prior conviction of defendant. Defendant denied the charge in the indictment of prior conviction of a felony. Upon that issue the record contains the testimony of a police officer that the defendant, after his arrest, stated that he had served a term in the state penitentiary of Kansas for grand

larceny;

that he was convicted because of the theft of automobile tires. When the defendant was on the witness-stand he was asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony and he stated that he had been so convicted. He contends upon appeal, however, that this latter question and answer should. have gone only to the credibility of the witness and that it was incompetent upon any other issue and that the jury should have been so instructed. On the other hand, the respondent contends that the admission of defendant, testified to by the officer, is sufficient for the finding of the jury upon the prior conviction under the provisions of

[369]

section 1844 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the effect that the direct evidence of one witness who was entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact except perjury and treason. It is argued that while the defendant may not have been entitled to full credit upon every subject, he is entitled to credit upon this matter which is against his interest.