(See People v. Newland (1940) 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778]; see our opinion in People v. Atwood (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 316, 325 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 831].) [3] As the court stated in People v. Bateman (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 76-77 [ 345 P.2d 334]: "It was the function of the trial judge in this nonjury case to determine what facts were established by the evidence. Before his conclusion can be set aside on review on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, it must be made clearly to appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below. [4] We must assume in favor of the finding of guilt the existence of every fact which the trial judge could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the finding.
[23] To render a person guilty of a public offense in which specific intent is not an ingredient it is sufficient that he intentionally committed the forbidden act. ( People v. Bateman, 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 74 [ 345 P.2d 334]; People v. Dillon, supra, p. 7.) [24] It is not essential to prove that the person charged entertained any intent to violate the law.
"The intent with which an act is done may be gathered from all the circumstances shown in evidence, and is a question of fact." ( People v. Bateman, 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 74 [ 345 P.2d 334].) When Kerfoot (gun in hand) entered the store, he stated to Browse: "Pass it over, all of it."
[2] Before the determination of the trial judge in this nonjury case can be set aside on review on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, it must be made clearly to appear that on no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support that determination. [3] We must assume in favor of the finding of guilt the existence of every fact which the trial judge could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the finding. ( People v. Bateman, 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 76 [ 345 P.2d 334].) [4, 5] As stated in People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, at page 259 [ 267 P.2d 271]: "To support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses, it must be shown that the defendant made a false pretense or representation with intent to defraud the owner of his property, and that the owner was in fact defrauded. . . . The false pretense or representation must have materially influenced the owner to part with his property, but the false pretense need not be the sole inducing cause. [Citation.] [6] If the conviction rests primarily on the testimony of a single witness that the false pretense was made, the making of the pretense must be corroborated.
The rule relied upon by appellant is for the guidance of the trial court. On appeal, we cannot reweigh the evidence to determine that defendant's testimony must be accepted, and that it gives rise to an inference of innocence as reasonable as that of guilt ( People v. Bateman, 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 76 [ 345 P.2d 334]; People v. Johnson, 136 Cal.App.2d 665, 671-672 [ 289 P.2d 90]). Here the evidence of guilt not only is substantial (see People v. Sharp, 174 Cal.App.2d 520, 522-523 [ 344 P.2d 796]), it is well-nigh overwhelming.
Q. You led them to understand that your profit was to accrue at such time as the scrip was exercised, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Right. You intended they rely on that? A. Correct, yes; . . ." [1] As this court said in People v. Bateman, 175 Cal.App.2d 69, at page 76 [ 345 P.2d 334]: "It was the function of the trial judge in this nonjury case to determine what facts were established by the evidence. Before his conclusion can be set aside on review on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, it must be made clearly to appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below. [2] We must assume in favor of the finding of guilt the existence of every fact which the trial judge could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the finding.
"The intent with which an act is done may be gathered from all the circumstances shown in evidence, and is a question of fact." (People v. Bateman (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 74.) The specific intent required to establish robbery under section 211 may be established by circumstantial evidence as well.
Section 484 provides, in relevant part, "(a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft." One can commit theft by false pretenses when he or she intentionally passes a bad check and thereby fraudulently obtains possession and title to merchandise from a store. (See, e.g., People v. North (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 112, 117; People v. Mason (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 281, 288; People v. Bateman (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 69, 75-76; see also People v. Britz (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 743, 752 [bad check given in exchange for valuable thrift certificates].) "A theft conviction on the theory of false pretenses requires proof that (1) the defendant made a false pretense or representation to the owner of property; (2) with the intent to defraud the owner of that property; and (3) the owner transferred the property to the defendant in reliance on the representation.