People v. Ahmad

SALSMAN, J. A jury convicted appellant of grand theft, and she appeals.

Appellant held the position of payroll clerk for a firm known as Statewide Convalescent Hospitals. As part of her duties she maintained payroll cards, prepared pay checks and for[315]warded such cheeks to her superiors for execution, after which the checks were returned to appellant for distribution. Appellant was absent from her employment for a short period of time, and in her absence a Mrs. Gustaveson served as payroll clerk. Mrs. Gustaveson discovered certain payroll cards with the name “Corrales” on them. These cards revealed that for a particular pay period, the payee “Corrales” worked for five different hospitals and was paid for such employment. It was established that there was no such person as ‘ ‘ Corrales ’ ’ employed by Statewide Convalescent Hospitals, but that cheeks had been issued in her name, endorsed and cashed. Upon inquiry by her employer, appellant stated that she knew no one by the name of “Corrales.”

A police investigation was commenced. Inspector Busse of the Oakland police called upon appellant at her place of employment. He discussed with her the subject of checks made out to “K. Corrales.” Appellant again denied she knew anyone by that name.

Inspector Busse then took appellant to the Oakland Police Department for further questioning. During interrogation at the police department, appellant gave oral answers to questions propounded by the officer. The answers given were essentially an oral confession of the charged offense. A short time later, at the request of Inspector Busse, appellant again answered the officer’s questions so that both questions and answers could be recorded on a tape. Still later, but on the same day, Inspector Busse again interrogated appellant. Appellant responded to questions asked by the officer, and the officer wrote down in narrative form the substance of appellant’s responses. When this writing was complete it was read to appellant and she signed it. There was evidence that all statements made by appellant were free and voluntary and not the result of any promises or threats on the part of anyone. The tape recording of appellant’s oral responses to the questions of the officer, and the written statement signed by her, may each be described as a full and complete confession. At trial, the tape recording of appellant’s oral confession was heard by the jury and a typewritten transcription was received in evidence. Appellant’s written confession, signed by her, was also received in evidence.