People v. Knott

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem. On June 16, 1941, in the halcyon days before our entry into the second World War, a truck driver left his truck, loaded with automobile tires and tubes, parked on the street while he went into a drug store. When he came out, the truck, tires and tubes were gone. So far as the driver is concerned, he disappears from this ease because that was the first and the last day that he worked for the corporation which owned the truck. The truck was found next day with no tires or tubes in it, and with all of the distinctive lettering on it painted out.

A few days after the disappearance of the tires, the defendant Knott rented a garage at the rear of a private home and stated that he wanted it for a place in which to store tires. After the garage was rented, the defendants Knott and Chaus were seen several times backing a Chevrolet car into it. After they were arrested, officers who searched the garage found empty cartons for tubes, which were identified as having been in the truck with tubes in them on the day it disappeared.

The defendant Knott sold for less than market prices a number of tires and tubes to different individuals, which [441]tires and tubes were identified at the trial as having been part of the truck load which disappeared.

The defendant Chaus endeavored to sell some tires and tubes to a dealer who turned him down because Chaus told him they were “hot.”

Upon being arrested Knott first said he did not know where the tires and tubes came from, then that he had bought them from a man by the name of Burk, and then that he got them' from the defendant Chaus; also that he had given Chaus $40 which he had received in payment for some of the tires and tubes which he sold. These tires and tubes were likewise identified as being part of the truck load in question.

Upon the conclusion of the People’s case neither defendant took the stand. The jury convicted them both of the crime of receiving stolen property, and they were sentenced to San Quentin. Motions for new trial were made and denied, and both defendants have appealed.

From the recital of facts just given, it is evident that there was ample evidence against the defendants to sustain the verdict of the jury.

Appellant Chaus contends that the evidence against him is not as strong as that against Knott. The circumstances that he was seen in a car backing into the garage several times, that he tried to sell tires and tubes which he described as “hot”, and that he received $40 from Knott from the sale of the stolen tires, are sufficient to support the verdict of the jury as against him.