People v. Garcia
Synopsis
Grand Larceny—Information.—A Demurrer to an Information on the ground that it was indefinite was properly overruled, as that is not one of the grounds for demurrer enumerated by Penal Code, section 1004.
Grand Larceny—Information.—As Penal Code, Section 487, declares that grand larceny is committed when the value of the property taken exceeds $50, an information is within the statute, whether it alleges that the stealing of property of such value was from the person or not.
Grand Larceny.—Where the Evidence Tended to Show That an Alleged larceny took place in a certain room, evidence that defendant lived therein was admissible, though it appeared that a woman jointly accused with him of the same offense lived in the same room, and the circumstance was possibly unfortunate to defendant with the jury.
Criminal Law—Character of Accused.—The Cross-examination of Witnesses who testified to defendant’s general reputation for truth, honesty and integrity may take a wide scope.
Larceny.—The Evidence in a Prosecution for Larceny of money tended to show that the money was taken from an intoxicated person, to whom defendant afterward introduced a hack driver as his coachman, and directed the driver where to go and throw him out. Held, that, if it was error to admit evidence of what was thereafter done by the driver and defendant’s victim in his absence, it was entirely harmless.
PER CURIAM. By the information in this case T. N. Garcia and two females—Susie Douglass and Rosa Durbin— were jointly accused of grand larceny committed in the stealing, etc., from “the ownership and possession of Thomas Tom[368]linson,” certain money of the value of $295, the property of said Tomlinson. Garcia was tried separately. He was convicted of the offense charged, and has appealed.
Appellant demurred to the information on the alleged ground that the same “is indefinite, in that it cannot be ascertained therefrom whether said larceny is from the person or not.” The demurrer was rightly overruled. Indefiniteness of the .information is not a ground for demurrer thereto: Pen. Code, sec. 1004; People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 49 Am. Rep. 700, 30 Pac. 620. Moreover, although the language of the information varied somewhat from the usual formula, yet, since it was alleged that the property stolen was above the value of $50, the offense charged was within the statutory definition of grand larceny, whether the stealing was from the person or not: Pen. Code, sec. 487. So that the information can no more be called indefinite for failing to show whether the money was taken from the person of Tomlin-son, than for failing to show whether it was taken from his house.
The chief insistence of appellant in this court seems to be that on the trial the court below allowed the district attorney to show (“in devious and improper ways,” it is claimed) the existence of immoral relations between appellant and said Rosa Durbin. Many instances of evidence having this bearing and admitted by the court are specified as error in the brief of appellant. It would not be profitable to discuss them singly. There was evidence tending to prove the following facts, among others: Said Susie Douglass occupied room 47, and said Rosa Durbin occupied room 49, of a certain building in the city of Los Angeles. Tomlinson, a stranger in the city, visited them at said rooms on the evening when the alleged larceny occunred, having then in his possession paper currency to the amount stated in the information. Appellant, Garcia, was also present, and the party passed some hours in carousing together at Tomlinson’s expense. Late in the evening Tomlinson had become grossly intoxicated, and all his money aforesaid was gone. Appellant then caused him to be taken away in a hack, instructing the driver, among other things, to keep silent, and to “take him somewhere and throw him away.” Immediately afterward appellant handed to said Rosa Durbin $80 in bills of like character and denominations with some of the said money of Tomlinson and she secreted
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)