Court Opinion

ID: 9792133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:23:41.148373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.696951
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I dissent. The majority opinion is contrary to the law as announced by this court in People v. Davis, 47 Cal.App.2d 331, 334 [117 P.2d 917], in which case the Supreme Court denied a hearing.
*278The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the People (respondent), the essential facts are:
December 22, 1941, Officer Appel of the Los Angeles Police Department went to 1423 Tamarind Avenue, Los Angeles. The premises were described as a “double residence.” Defendant was seen standing on the south side of the “double residence.” As Officer Appel entered the house, she left the premises. In the house he found a telephone and on a shelf by the telephone there were two papers described as:
(1) “Daily Turf Reporter” dated December 22, 1941, and
(2) “Metropolitan Scratch Sheet” dated December 22, 1941.
Officer Appel for approximately one and one-half hours answered the telephone and received requests for the placing of bets upon horses. At the time of .the trial Officer Appel was qualified as being familiar with the customs and manner in which bookmakers conducted their business in Los Angeles County and also as being familiar with the papers and paraphernalia commonly used in bookmaking activities. He was shown People’s Exhibit “D,” which was the Metropolitan Scratch Sheet dated December 22, 1941, mentioned above and with reference thereto he was questioned and answered as follows:
“By Mr. Thomas: Q. I will show you People’s Exhibit D for identification. What are these papers commonly called ?
“A. Those papers are commonly called betting markers.
“Q. In your opinion, as an expert on bookmaking, what do the numbers appearing upon this first line indicat ef
“Mr. A. J. Chotiner: Objected to as not the subject of expert testimony and incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial as to what his opinion may be as to that. That would be calling for hearsay opinion.
“The Court: Objection overruled.
“A. This first bet on the top line, or the number ‘117’ is a number which has been allotted to a horse purportedly running that day on a race track; and the number ‘59’ to the right of that is also a number which has been allotted to a horse. The bet is called a ‘parlay’ bet. The bettor has bet one dollar to win—one dollar to place. If horse No. 117 wins the total amount is then bet on horse No. 59.
“The next figure beneath that is No. 38, which is also a number which has been assigned to a horse.
*279“Q. And the name of that horse is what?
“A. No. 38 has been assigned to a horse by the name of Distant Isle running in the second race at Tropical Park. The previous number I have testified to, No. 117, has been assigned to a horse named Rodin. The No. 59 has been assigned to a horse named Old Nick.” (Italics added.)
This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Was it prejudicial error for the trial court to permit Officer Appel to give his opinion as to what the numbers appearing upon the “Scratch Sheet” (People’s Exhibit “D”) indicatedt

This question must be answered in the affirmative. The rule is established in California that testimony of a police officer that numerals and letters on a sheet of paper represent the amounts of a bet, the initials of the bettor, and the horse upon which the bet is placed are inadmissible, since they are pure surmise and merely expressions of a witness on matters not the subject of expert testimony (People v. Davis, 47 Cal.App. 2d 331, 334 [117 P.2d 917]).
Since there was no admissible evidence as to what the numbers and writing on the scratch sheet found in defendant’s house meant, the corpus delicti of the present offense was not established and there was insufficient evidence to sustain a judgment of guilty.
For the foregoing reasons in my opinion the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 27, 1942.