California Courts of Appeal, 1965

People v. Henderson

California Courts of Appeal · Decided December 6, 1965 · Crim. 5200 · Draper

238 Cal. App. 2d 566; 48 Cal. Rptr. 114; 1965 Cal. App. LEXIS 1172

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Garcia CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
State of West Virginia v. Gina Marie Jerrome (W. Va. 2014)
People v. Jones CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Caretto v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Commonwealth v. Warlow (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
State v. Hammond (Wash. Ct. App. 1972)
State v. Zarafonetis (N.M. Ct. App. 1970)
May v. May (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)
People v. Ledesma-Vasquez CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Caretto v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
People v. Young CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
People v. Patterson CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
People v. Lopez CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
Caretto v. Superior Court CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
People v. Young CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
P. v. Talamantez CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

Tried to the court without a jury, defendant was convicted of grand theft, and sentenced to prison. His sole argument on appeal is that the evidence does not establish that the articles were worth more than $200, and that thus his crime cannot be grand theft (Pen. Code, §487).

This contention is an obvious afterthought. The sole defense at trial was that there was no intent to steal. The owner testified that the stolen watch was worth $1,800 and the stolen ring $1,200; he had purchased them from established jewelers for these sums; and he had with him the receipts for them. Defendant did not cross-examine as to value, offered no evidence regarding it, and never suggested a lesser valuation. He now argues that evidence of value can be given only by one who has some expertise, whether or not he is the owner.

The California rule is to the contrary (People v. More, 10 Cal.App.2d 144 [51 P.2d 175] [jewelry]; People v. Coleman, *567 222 Cal.App.2d 358 [35 Cal.Rptr. 141]; People v. Lenahan, 38 Cal.App.2d 39 [100 P.2d 515]; People v. Haney, 126 Cal.App. 473 [14 P.2d 854]), as is also the general rule (3 Wig-more on Evidence (3d ed.) §716; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 414). The weight to be given the owner’s testimony as to value is for the trier of the fact (3 Wigmore on Evidence, supra). The decisions cited by defendant (People v. Robertson, 117 Cal.App. 1 [3 P.2d 336]; People v. Licalsi, 99 Cal.App. 321 [278 P. 454]) are not in point.

Judgment affirmed.

Salsman J., and Devine, J., concurred.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.