People v. Wiley

California Court of Appeal

People v. Wiley

46 P.2d 817, 8 Cal. App. 2d 135, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 625

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 27, 1935

DocketCrim. 2719

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 P.2d 817 (People v. Wiley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Wiley, 46 P.2d 817, 8 Cal. App. 2d 135, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Defendants were convicted by a jury of second decree burglary, and on this appeal declare that the evidence is insufficient to sustain such conviction.

The household furniture of the complaining witness was stolen from an unoccupied residence where it was stored. It was later found in the possession of the two defendants, a portion of it being at the home of each. Defendant Lemmie Wiley was seen riding on a truck hauling furniture to his residence. When arrested he told the officers of meeting a stranger and of storing the furniture for him, and testified to a somewhat different set of circumstances at the trial. Defendant Elmo W. Wiley stated to the officers that he and Lemmie had bought the furniture from one “Jimmie Jones”, and testified to that effect at the trial, producing a receipt *136 alleged to have been received from that party. He gave an exemplar of handwriting which the jury compared with the receipt, in each of which the name was spelled “Jemmie Johns”, and furniture was spelled “funiture”.

Where a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances tending to show his guilt will support a conviction. (People v. Cataline, 54 Cal. App. 36 [200 Pac. 1060]; People v. Gibson, 16 Cal. App. 347 [116 Pac. 987]; People v. Swanson, 120 Cal. App. 173, at page 176 [7 Pac. (2d) 380].) The inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations and testimony of each defendant herein afford ample evidence to support the determination by the jury of their guilt of the crime of which they were convicted.

Judgment affirmed.

Grail, J., and Stephens, P. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Defendants were convicted by a jury of second decree burglary, and on this appeal declare that the evidence is insufficient to sustain such conviction.

The household furniture of the complaining witness was stolen from an unoccupied residence where it was stored. It was later found in the possession of the two defendants, a portion of it being at the home of each. Defendant Lemmie Wiley was seen riding on a truck hauling furniture to his residence. When arrested he told the officers of meeting a stranger and of storing the furniture for him, and testified to a somewhat different set of circumstances at the trial. Defendant Elmo W. Wiley stated to the officers that he and Lemmie had bought the furniture from one “Jimmie Jones”, and testified to that effect at the trial, producing a receipt *136 alleged to have been received from that party. He gave an exemplar of handwriting which the jury compared with the receipt, in each of which the name was spelled “Jemmie Johns”, and furniture was spelled “funiture”.

Where a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances tending to show his guilt will support a conviction. (People v. Cataline, 54 Cal. App. 36 [200 Pac. 1060]; People v. Gibson, 16 Cal. App. 347 [116 Pac. 987]; People v. Swanson, 120 Cal. App. 173, at page 176 [7 Pac. (2d) 380].) The inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations and testimony of each defendant herein afford ample evidence to support the determination by the jury of their guilt of the crime of which they were convicted.

Judgment affirmed.

Grail, J., and Stephens, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 P.2d 817, 8 Cal. App. 2d 135, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wiley-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack