People v. Whisner

DRAPEAU, J. Defendant was charged by information with the crime of burglary. The court sitting without a jury found him guilty as charged, and fixed the degree of the crime as first degree. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied; judgment was pronounced, and he was sentenced to the county jail for a term of one year. Execution of such sentence was suspended and defendant was granted probation for two years upon condition that he serve the first five months thereof in the county jail. He here appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying him a new trial.

[846]It .is here urged that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence; that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment and the court erred in the admission of evidence.

The main contention appears to be that the evidence is insufficient to identify the articles found in appellant’s possession as those stolen from the burglarized house.

The record discloses that on August 13, 1949, Mr. R. H. Galle left his home in Los Angeles around 7 :40 p. m. At that time the house was locked, including the front door. When he returned about 11:30 that night, he found the screen had been removed from a back window and left on the ground, and that the front door, although closed, was unlocked. Mr. Galle’s daughter returned home a few minutes before he did, and upon examination they found that two cameras, a light meter and a radio were missing from the house. They both testified that they had not given permission to appellant or to anyone else to enter their home and remove the stated articles.

On August 20, 1949, appellant was arrested in a barbershop having in his possession a camera and a light meter. He had offered the camera for sale at $35 with the statement that it was worth $110. This camera was introduced in evidence. Mr. Galle was asked if he recognized it as the one stolen from his house. He stated: “Well, it is one just like it. I couldn’t swear until I see the serial number. . . . I have taken pictures with it. It is my daughter’s camera. ’ ’ He then explained that he did not know where the serial number appeared on the camera, but he had asked the May Company to look it up (apparently from the record of the purchase) and he had the serial number on paper.

His daughter, Rosalie, testified that the camera “is an Argus C-3 just like mine. ’ ’ That its distinguishing mark was a serial number. As to the light meter, she stated it looked like hers but she could not prove it “because there are thousands of those.”