From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. St. Clair

Supreme Court of California
Mar 17, 1896
5 Cal. Unrep. 294 (Cal. 1896)

Opinion

          Department 1. Appeal from superior court, San Joaquin county; Joseph H. Budd, Judge.

          Frank St. Clair was convicted of grand larceny, and from the judgment, and an order denying a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.

         COUNSEL

          J. G. Swinnerton and A. V. Scanlon, for appellant.

          Atty. Gen. Fitzgerald, for the People.


          OPINION

          PER CURIAM

          Defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and now appeals, insisting that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The jury passed upon its sufficiency, and the trial court also did, when it denied a motion for a new trial. Under these circumstances, this court will not hold the evidence insufficient to support the verdict, unless defendant’s guilt has no support therein. In this case a larceny of a horse and cart was committed. A short time thereafter the defendant was seen in possession of the property, traveling rapidly away from the scene of the larceny. At this time, when seen, he acted suspiciously, as though trying to evade identification. A few hours thereafter he was [5 Cal.Unrep. 295] arrested 23 miles from the scene of the larceny, still traveling in an opposite direction, with the property in his possession. When arrested he made false statements in explanation of his possession. Upon this state of facts, we will not disturb the verdict of the jury. Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. St. Clair

Supreme Court of California
Mar 17, 1896
5 Cal. Unrep. 294 (Cal. 1896)
Case details for

People v. St. Clair

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. ST. CLAIR.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 17, 1896

Citations

5 Cal. Unrep. 294 (Cal. 1896)
5 Cal. Unrep. 294

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

We think that there can be no question that evidence that the stolen property was found in the possession of…

People’s Ditch Co. v. ‘76 Land & Water Co.

As a result of such examination, we are constrained to hold that the contention cannot be sustained. While,…