People v. Scott

McCOMB, J.

Defendant was convicted after trial before a jury on three counts of grand theft. From the judgment and order denying his motion for new trial, he appeals.

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of guilty on each count but claims that the court erred in (a) giving the jury an instruction on the subject of embezzlement,

1

and (b) refusing to instruct the jury as requested by defendant (1) as to the difference between grand theft and petty theft,

2

(2) that to constitute theft by trick and device the fraudulent intent to convert the property must exist at the time it is received,

3

and (3) that if several acts of taking were done pursuant to one design, the same constitutes one offense only.

4

[352]

Article VI, section 4% of the Constitution of the State of California reads in part as follows: “No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted,

in any case,

on the ground of

misdirection of the jury, . .

. unless, after an ex: animation of the entire cause, • including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Italics added.) We have examined the record and .are of the opinion the evidence fully sustains the verdict of guilty on each count and there has not been a miscarriage of justice in the present case. Hence, since it needs no citation of authorities to support the thesis that this court is bound by the mandate of the Constitution of the State of California, it follows the judgment and order must be affirmed.

It is likewise apparent no useful purpose would be sub-served by an extended discussion of the errors alleged by defendant, which would only be, as indicated in the cases cited in the footnotes, a repetition of principles of law well established in this state and repeatedly reiterated in opinions of the appellate courts. We therefore refrain from further discussion of the alleged errors.