Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE v. ADAMS.
Defendant, Jack Adams, was found guilty of two counts of grand theft, and of two prior felony convictions for which he served time in state's prisons. He appeals from the judgment of imprisonment that followed his conviction.
Defendant secured $600 from the complaining witness, to be used to buy an automobile at a probate sale in Riverside County. On his trial he testified that he gave the money to a man by the name of Salzer for that purpose. The complaining witness testified that defendant told him that he had helped put Salzer through law school, and since Salzer was now handling the estate in Riverside he was returning the favor.
But there was no automobile, no probate estate, and no Mr. Salzer. When the complaining witness grew insistent, demanding his money or the car, defendant gave him a check, drawn on a bank in which he had no account. Inquiry was made by police officers at addresses of Mr. Salzer given by defendant, but the man had never been heard of at those places. And the complaining witness never got his money back, or any car.
Defendant contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to show a felonious intent to steal at the time he took the money.
This contention cannot be upheld. For it was for the trial court to draw the inference of guilt from the facts in the case. People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 104 P.2d 778. It appears from the record that defendant's guilt is logically inferable from those facts. C.C.P. § 1870, Subd. 15. Where the circumstances are such as to justify an inference of guilt, the fact that an inference of innocence might likewise be drawn therefrom does not present a question of law for review by an appellate court. People v. Martinez, 20 Cal.App. 343, 128 P. 952.
Defendant relies especially upon People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App.2d 107, 138 P.2d 320. That case, however, was quite different. In that case there was no evidence upon which a finding of guilt of grand theft could have been based.
The judgment is affirmed.
DRAPEAU, Justice.
DORAN, Acting P. J., and MOSK, J. pro tem., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 5133.
Decided: August 16, 1954
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)