People v. Jones

WOOD (Parker), J. Defendant was charged with grand theft (of automobile) in Count I, and with violating section 503 of the Vehicle Code (driving automobile without consent of owner) in Count II. In a nonjury trial he was adjudged not guilty as to Count I, and guilty as to Count II. He appeals from the judgment.

Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.

Section 503 of the Vehicle Code provides: “Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the owner thereof of his title to or possession of such vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the same ... is guilty of a felony . . . .”

Testimony on behalf of the People was in substance as follows: On March 12, 1957, about 1 a. m., Mr. Roneelli parked his Mercury automobile on Lake Street in Altadena, in front of a beer café. About 1:30 p. m. on that day, when he returned to the place where he left his automobile, the automobile was not there. He did not know the defendant and he did not give anyone permission to take the automobile. About 2:55 a. m. of that day, a police officer saw defendant sitting “behind the wheel” in Mr. Roneelli’s automobile which was parked on Avenue 64 in Pasadena. The automobile was at the curb, and the parking lights of the automobile were lighted and the key was in the ignition.

A deputy sheriff, called as a witness by the People, testified that later on that same day defendant told him, as follows: defendant had been drinking at the beer café in Altadena and [810]had been talking with a person by the name of Shorty Serber; Shorty asked defendant “to drive him home” and told defendant that Shorty’s Mercury automobile, with the key in the ignition, was parked on Lake Street; defendant got into the automobile and- drove it to the café to pick up Shorty, and he saw Shorty get into another automobile; then defendant decided to go to Sawtelle to get assistance “as an alcoholic”; on his way to Sawtelle he was stopped by the police officers.

Defendant did not testify or call a witness in his behalf.

Appellant’s argument is to the effect that there was no proof that he had the intent to deprive the owner of the possession of the automobile; and that since the prosecution presented, as a part of its case in chief, the testimony of the deputy sheriff to the effect that defendant said he took the automobile with the consent of Shorty and he thought Shorty was the owner of the automobile, the prosecution is bound by that testimony.