People v. Stanley
Before: Ashburn
ASHBURN, J. Defendant was convicted of violation of subdivision 3, section 337a, Penal Code, bookmaking.1 Motion for new trial was denied, further proceedings suspended and probation granted. Defendant appealed from “the judgment. ’ ’ For purposes of appeal the order granting probation falls within that term. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 1.) Defendant also appealed from the order denying a new trial.
The sole contention made by appellant’s counsel is that the evidence is insufficient to establish a corpus delicti, in that there was no proof that horse races upon which defendant took bets were actually run. Counsel say in their brief: [17]‘ ‘ There is no evidence that any other horse was in the eighth (8th) race at Tropical Park, competing against ‘Topside.’ There is no evidence in the record that ‘Wolf Junior’ was a horse. • There is no evidence that ‘Wolf Junior’ was competing against anything. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient in this respect. . . . Again, there is no evidence in the record that ‘Aces Count’ was competing against any other beasts or horses.”
Defendant testified that he was engaged as a bookmaker prior to 1954, that he was then convicted of that offense and was on probation when the instant crime was committed. He admitted that he was then engaged in taking “layoff bets” from small bookmakers. “The Court : What difference does it make? He has already admitted that during that period he was operating as a bookmaker.”
The evidence, viewed most favorably to respondents (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778]), shows the following. Police Officer James A. Branch, on January 16, 1956, visited a “cash room,” a place for taking and relaying bets, located at 5750 Crenshaw Boulevard in the city of Los Angeles. It was the back room of a pretended television shop. As he stepped on a rubber mat at the front door a bell rang, a face appeared in a peep hole in a partition and he was admitted to the back room. There he saw the usual accouterments of a bookmaking activity, table, numerous chairs, telephone, scratch sheets, magic pad for recording bets, betting markers, and the like. On a prior occasion there had also been a radio giving results of races. Betters were identified by initials or numbers. Races were then being run at Santa Anita and Tropical Park race tracks. Defendant Stanley was present when Branch entered the cash room on that day. One Jesse Sanford, with whom Branch previously had bet, was not in sight, so he asked defendant whether he could place a bet with him. Receiving an affirmative answer he handed defendant $6.00 and bet $2.00 to win on a horse named “Topside” which was running in the eighth race at Tropical Park, $2.00 to win on “Wolf Junior,” running in the ninth race at the same track; also a $2.00 parlay from Topside to Wolf Junior. Defendant took the bets and placed the money in his pocket. On the preceding Friday, the 13th, Branch had bet $2.00 with Sanford on “Aces Count” in the first race at Santa Anita. On this occasion, the 16th, he asked defendant to call his Vermont location and get an o.k. for payoff on that horse which had
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)