People v. Salo

WOOD, J. Defendant was accused of the crimes of burglary and receiving stolen property. In a trial without a jury, he was acquitted of the charge of burglary and convicted of receiving stolen property. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, and asserts that the evidence was insufficient and that there was misconduct on the part of the district attorney and the court.

On January 27, 1944, eleven new automobile tires were stolen from a gasoline service station in Los Angeles. On February 3, 1945, three police officers and three officers of the state narcotic bureau, in the presence of defendant, searched a liquor store at 861 Bast Jefferson Boulevard, Los Angeles, which was owned by defendant’s sister, and operated by her with the assistance of defendant. The salesroom of the store was at the front of the building. Adjoining the back of that room was a storeroom, and back of the storeroom a bedroom. After they had searched the bedroom where there was “a lot of new merchandise,” new clothes and bed linen, and while they were talking to defendant about that merchandise and were searching the storeroom, one of the officers, who was on top of a stack of beer cases, said there were tires back of the beer cases. Thereupon the defendant said, according to the testimony of one of the officers, ‘1 ‘ Those tires are hot; that is the only thing that is hot here; the rest of. that stuff my sister bought and paid for.’ ” The beer cases were stacked about nine feet high and so arranged that, in order to get the tires, it was necessary to climb over the stack of beer cases. One of the officers did so and found six automobile tires, four of which were new tires that had been stolen from the service station.

■ An officer testified that he asked defendant where he got the tires, and defendant said he got them “ ‘from a fellow named George, a colored boy,’ ” who came along driving a Firestone truck, and who asked defendant if he could use some tires. The officer testified further that defendant said that he paid $10 or $12 apiece for the tires; that he had had them about á year; that he knew they were hot, and that was the reason he hid them back of the beer cases; and that he ran the store for his sister most of the time. The officers of the narcotic bureau arrested defendant on February 3d, and when all had left the store defendant locked it with his keys. He was arrested by the police officers on the charge herein on February 5th.

[683]Another police officer testified that on February 5th defendant said he bought the tires as “recaps” about two months previously, and that he did not know the difference between new tires and recaps. He testified further that after the officers had taken defendant to his father’s house where defendant lived, had made a search there, and had left, they asked defendant about the burglary, and defendant said, “ ‘There wasn’t no burglary, I did not go in the station,— after all, you got the man you want why bother my family, they know nothing about this. ’ ’ ’