People v. Henderson

DORAN, J. This is an appeal from the judgment and the order denying a motion for a new trial.

Defendant and appellant together with two other defendants, Robert Henderson and D. W. Henderson, are charged by information with grand theft in Counts I and II and with “conspiracy to violate section 236 of the Vehicle Code, a misdemeanor, and section 487, subd. 3 of the Penal Code.” In the third count 10 overt acts are alleged.

At the trial, before a jury, appellant appeared in propria persona. The defendants did not testify.

The offenses involve the theft of automobiles, remodeling and sale thereof, and other transactions relating to stolen automobiles and their resale. The defendants did the work on the cars—altering, painting and otherwise changing their appearance. The trial consumed several days.

Appellant submits the following question on appeal;

1. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction of grand theft contained in Counts I and II?

2. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction of conspiracy contained in Count III?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude witnesses ?

4. Is the conspiracy statute unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case?

5. Was the district attorney guilty of prejudicial misconduct in his argument to the jury?

Appellant argues that, “possession alone is insufficient to sustain the conviction for in addition to the mere possession of stolen property shortly after it is stolen, there must be corroborating circumstances tending to show the defendants guilty.” and that “A complete search of the record completely fails to show a specific intent to commit the crime of larceny. [52]This specific intent is an essential fact to be proved by the prosecution. ” “ The specific intent requisite to constitute the offense charged may not be manufactured and the appellant concedes that the prosecution need not prove the specific intent directly, but by the same token, appellant maintains that the evidence must be sufficient to reflect the specific intent.”

With regard to the conspiracy offense, appellant argues that “An examination of the record shows no concerted activity between this appellant and any other defendant. In the absence of any knowledge on the part of appellant that the vehicle which he was offering for sale contained a transmission from the disappeared Bel Air Chevrolet, he could not be a party to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. On the contrary, the record shows that in offering the vehicle for sale, he acted openly and honestly.”