PEOPLE v. James Farrara and Helen Farrara, Appellants.

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James FARRARA, Helen Farrara and Maxine Shaman, Defendants, James Farrara and Helen Farrara, Appellants.

Cr. 5428.

Decided: October 25, 1955

G. Vernon Brumbaugh, Los Angeles, for appellants. Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Joan D. Gross, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

James and Helen Farrara appeal from a judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. They were convicted by the court of the crime of bookmaking. Section 337a of the Penal Code. James Farrara admitted that he had theretofore suffered two convictions under the Mann act, and had served terms in federal prisons for those offenses. The two defendants were granted three years probation, with the first ninety days to be served in the county jail.

In his brief, James Farrara summarizes the facts as follows:

‘Officers observed James Farrara approach a parked automobile, and enter it, and they at the same time also entered, and had him drive a block away at which time he was searched.

‘Exhibit 1 (National Daily Reporter, 10/27/54) and Exhibit 2, (Sheets of Paper) were found on his person, together with a key which opened the door at 729 1/2 South Cocharn (Exhibit 7). That one of the sheets found at 729 1/2 South Cochran was, in the opinion of the handwriting expert, written by him.’

Mr. Farrara contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment; that there was illegal searxh and seizure; and that the venue of the crime was not proved. He argues that the police officers had no right to arrest him, and that they therefore violated his constitutional right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches.

Helen Farrara contends that the evidence against her did not establish her guilt.

There is no merit to any of these contentions.

It is elementary in criminal law that a police officer may make an arrest when he has reasonable cause to believe a person has committed a felony. Penal Code, Section 836.

It is also elementary state and federal law that a search incident to a lawful arrest may be made by police officers without a search warrant. In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 761, 264 P.2d 513; Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399; and see 79 C.J.S., Searches and Seizures, § 26, p. 795.

Defendant argues that the law established by our Supreme Court in People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905, compels a reversal in his case. But the Cahan case does not abrogate the law just stated. The Cahan case limits what police officers may do when they suspect that a person is committing a felony, and desire to secure evidence to prove their suspicion. That limitation is not applicable under the facts in this case.

As required by our law, this Court has reviewed the record. The case for the people was submitted on the reporter's transcript of the preliminary examination. Neither defendant took the stand to deny the charges, at the preliminary examination or in the Superior Court.

The arresting officer testified that he took from Mr. Farrara's person a scratch sheet, the National Daily Reporter, and numerous pieces of note book paper containing pencil notations; that the latter papers are called betting markers; and that these memoranda established the fact that defendant had been placing bets on horse races. Another witness testified that pencil notations on the betting markers were in Mr. Farrara's handwriting. Comparison of the notations on the betting markers with information in the National Daily Reporter indicated the index numbers of horses running on local race tracks, together with amounts of money wagered and mutuel payoffs. This was sufficient proof of the crime charged.

So far as Mrs. Farrara is concerned, the evidence is that similar memoranda were taken from her possession in a room at the address on South Cochran Street, and that she admitted having written notations on some of the betting markers, and also that she had been taking bets over the telephone.

Evidence as to venue was sufficient in both cases. The arrests were made in Los Angeles county. Venue is a question of fact. People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 748, 762, 106 P.2d 84. Applying the principle stated in People v. West, 34 Cal.App.2d 55, 59, 93 P.2d 153, the trier of fact in this case was justified in finding the venue in Los Angeles county. South Cochran is a well-known street in the city and county of Los Angeles.

The judgment and the order are, and each of them is, affirmed.

DRAPEAU, Justice.

WHITE, P. J., and DORAN, J., concur.