Court Opinion

ID: 9629374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:41:43.035913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:31.439024
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
Prom a judgment of guilty of violating subsection 3 of section 337a of the Penal Code of the State of California and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.
Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the ground that the respondent failed to offer any evidence to prove venue of the crime of which defendant was convicted.
This proposition is tenable. The law is established in California that in order to sustain a conviction evidence must be received to prove the venue of the crime charged and that, where there is no evidence that a felony was committed in the county over which the superior court had jurisdiction, a conviction will be reversed. (People v. Pollock, 26 Cal. App. (2d) 602, 604 [80 Pac. (2d) 106] ; In re Huber, 103 Cal. App. 315, 316 [284 Pac. 509].)
In the instant case the information charged that the offense was committed in the county of Los Angeles. The only evidence upon this issue was that of a police officer A. C. McCoy, who testified that he was a police officer of “this city” and that he visited the defendant’s place of business, and of the witness McDearmon who testified as follows:
‘1Q. Did you go into a place in this city where the defendant was on or about May 4th of this year ?
“A. No, sir, I did not.
“Q. Were you near there?
“A. On May the 9th I went with Officer McCoy.
“Q. You weren’t in there before May 9th?
“A. Yes, I was when the other arrest was made. When Israel was arrested I was in there then.
“Q. When was that?
“A. That was, I believe, the 4th or 5th.
‘ ‘ Q. Who did you go in there with on that occasion ?
*115“A. Officers Howard and McCoy and myself, I believe it was.
“Q. Then on the 9th of May you went in there again?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Were those the only two occasions you had ever been in there?
“A. Yes.”
The foregoing testimony, it is obvious, was wholly inadequate to support an inference that the crime was committed in the county of Los Angeles. The testimony states that the witness McCoy was a police officer of this city. However, there is no testimony as to what city this city was. Likewise there is no testimony as to the city where the defendant was at the time of the alleged crime or where his place of business was located. In People v. Bringhurst, 192 Cal. 748 [221 Pac. 897], and People v. Wright, 79 Cal. App. 523 [250 Pac. 204], there was direct testimony as to the place where the offenses charged were committed.
In the present case there was gross and inexcusable carelessness upon the part of the prosecution in failing to make direct proof that the offense was committed in the county of Los Angeles.
For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on February 29, 1940.