O'Herrigan

People v. O'Herrigan

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 2d 536·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1434·333 P.2d 264
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1958Crim. No. 6369California923 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shinn, J.

In a jury trial O ’Herrigan was convicted of four offenses of violation of section 337a, Penal Code, namely subdivision I (bookmaking), subdivision II (occupancy of residence for the purpose of bookmaking), subdivision IV (recording a bet or bets) and subdivision VI (accepting a bet or bets). He made a motion for a new trial which was denied and he appeals from the judgment and the order. The sole contention on the appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to justify the verdicts.

Since we must accept that view of the evidence which tends to support the verdicts, even though it be contradicted by evidence favorable to the defendant, the jury was required to draw reasonable inferences from the following facts: At premises numbered 11432 Elliott Avenue in El Monte there is *537 a cottage; nearby are the Mainger Bar and a grocery ■ outside the grocery is a telephone in a booth; Officer Bay parked on Elliott in sight of the booth; on the first occasion he saw defendant come from the bar and go to the telephone, take the receiver off the hook, take a piece of paper from a hip pocket and then leave. Defendant repeated this operation two or three times at intervals of about…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.