People v. Witt

FILES, P. J. This appeal is from a judgment following a court trial in which defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft (Pen. Code, § 182) and two counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, §§484, 487). The ease arises out of defendant’s conduct as president of Pacific Trust Deed Association. The indictment upon which defendant was tried is the same one as in People v. Collins (2 CR 9560) ante, p. 626 [51 Cal.Rptr. 604], Reference to the opinion in that ease will disclose the factual background.

The indictment originally contained 16 counts. Count I charged the defendants Collins, Witt, Barr and Kersting with conspiracy to commit grand theft. The other 15 counts charged one or more of the defendants with grand theft. All pleaded not guilty and were tried before a jury. Barr and Kersting were acquitted. Witt and Collins were acquitted on certain counts and the jury failed to agree on others. Thereafter, on March 28, 1963, Witt pleaded guilty to counts I and XVI. On June 6, 1963, Collins was brought to trial on seven counts and convicted on all of them. Witt then changed attorneys and the court granted him leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. A jury was waived and it was agreed that the case would be submitted to the court upon (1) the grand jury transcript, (2) certain portions of the Collins trial record (including all exhibits) and (3) evidence to be offered on behalf of the defendant. Upon the completion of the trial the court found Witt guilty on counts I, XV and XVI.1 Witt was sentenced to state prison, execution was suspended, and he was placed on probation for 10 years.

The defense offered by Witt was, in substance, that he relied on subordinates who assured him that trust deeds were being assigned as money was withdrawn from the trust accounts, and that although he knew the company records were not up to date he had believed the company to be solvent to and including November 18,1960, the day it ceased business.

Defendant’s sole contention in this court is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. His argument is [643]no more than a request to this court to reweigh the evidence, to believe testimony which the trial court disbelieved, and to reject inferences which the trial court drew from the evidence. No reference to authority is necessary other than the oft-repeated rule that this court must assume in favor of the judgment the existence of every fact which the trier of the fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885 [256 P.2d 911].)