People v. Wilson

FOURT, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of bookmaking (Pen. Code, § 337 a).

In an information filed in Los Angeles County the appellant was charged with three counts of bookmaking activities; count 1 charged a violation of section 337a, subdivision 1 of the Penal Code, count 2 charged a violation of section 337a, subdivision 2 of the Penal Code, and count 3 charged a violation of section 337a, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty. A jury was waived and by stipulation the cause was submitted upon the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing. Appellant was found guilty as charged in count 3 and not guilty as to the remaining counts. The appeal is from the judgment.

A résumé of some of the facts is as follows: before March 10, 1961, the day of appellant’s arrest, Officer Aldridge had received information from the vice and intelligence files of the police department that the establishment at 148 East Santa Barbara Street was a record shop owned and operated by the appellant and that bookmaking had been and was still [781]being conducted there. The officer knew that the appellant had been arrested 13 times and had been convicted of bookmaking. The officer had entered the premises at 148 Bast Santa Barbara Street many times before and had seen copies of the National Daily Reporter in the shop. The officer also had information that the appellant recorded his bets on the cash register top. On March 10, 1961, about 4:30 p. m. the officer and his partner parked their unmarked police car in the alley east of appellant’s shop and then entered the shop through the front door. As they entered Aldridge saw appellant standing in the rear of the shop facing him and bending over the counter top looking at something on the counter. Aldridge walked rapidly to the rear, looked over the counter and saw a National Daily Reporter on the counter. Close to the Reporter was a green piece of paper upon which appellant was writing. The appellant picked up the green paper and folded it into his hand. The officer said, “Riley, let me see the paper” and thereupon appellant handed it to Aldridge. The officer saw that the green piece of paper contained 10 notations. The officer was acquainted with the bookmaking paraphernalia as used in Los Angeles County and at once recognized the paper as a betting marker. Aldridge was known to the appellant as a police officer. The appellant was asked why he was writing the wagers on the piece of green paper inasmuch as he ordinarily kept his bets on the cash register top. The appellant replied in effect that he had gotten careless and was writing on the green paper, further that the bets recorded were of bets at Santa Anita Park and that he “might as well admit it,” that the officers “had him caught.” Appellant also was asked by the officer if he kept the “action” for himself or if he sent some of it out, and appellant replied, according to the officer’s testimony, in part that he “kept all his own action . . . and he settled up with the bettors after the race was run, at his place of business.” Appellant admitted writing the marker in question.