Since counsel for defendant made no objection at the time and did not move to strike or ask the court to admonish the jury to disregard these statements, and since the truth of their utterance is not established by a competent record, defendant may not now be heard to complain. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; 17 West's Cal.Dig., p. 199, Key 1119(4); 8 Cal.Jur., p. 508, § 521.) Next, it is claimed that the court erred in not giving, on its own motion, further instructions on circumstantial evidence involving criminal knowledge and intent, citing such cases as People v. Yrigoyen, 45 Cal.2d 46 [ 286 P.2d 1]; People v. Koenig, 29 Cal.2d 87 [ 173 P.2d 1]; and cases cited therein.
Under these circumstances a reviewing court is unable intelligently to appraise the effect of the criticised remarks and to declare that the language amounts to such prejudicial misconduct as to demand reversal of the judgment. ( People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App.2d 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Mareck, 17 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 61 P.2d 972].) If appellant's counsel desired that the criticised language should receive the full consideration and fair appraisal of a reviewing court they should have complied with the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the rules of this court.
Under these circumstances a reviewing court is unable intelligently to appraise the effect of the criticized remarks and to declare that the language amounts to such prejudicial misconduct as to demand reversal of the judgment. ( People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App. (2d) 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Mareck, 17 Cal.App. (2d) 278 [ 61 P.2d 972].) If appellant's counsel desired that the criticized language should receive the full consideration and fair appraisal of a reviewing court they should have complied with the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the rules of this court.
We are, therefore, unable to pass upon that objection. ( People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App. (2d) 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881].) In People v. Bragdon, supra, the court, in discussing alleged misconduct of the district attorney, in his argument said:
Under these circumstances, this court might well refuse to consider this assignment of error. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881].) [7] We have nevertheless examined the closing argument of the district attorney and while we cannot place the stamp of approval on all that was said, we are of the opinion that there was nothing therein which would warrant a reversal of the judgment against appellant.
That judgment was affirmed. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036].) He made a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied.