People v. Bispham

California Court of Appeal May 2, 1938 No. Crim. 1615Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, holding that the trial judge acted within their discretion in determining the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the fire's criminal origin.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence.
Whether the corpus delicti of the crime was established to allow for the consideration of the defendant's alleged admissions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court granted a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence, was not sufficient to sustain the conviction.”

“The determination of the trial court to deny or grant a new trial will not, therefore, be disturbed on appeal except for a clear abuse of its discretion.”

[217]

PULLEN, P. J.

Defendant herein was accused by the grand jury of arson; of burning insured property, and of wilful and malicious burning of property as defined in section 448 (a) of the Penal Code.

After arraignment and trial before a jury, a verdict was returned finding defendant not guilty of arson, but guilty of wilful and malicious burning of property, and also guilty of burning insured property.

The court granted a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence, was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. From this order the People prosecute this appeal.

On the afternoon of July 4, 1937, a one-story business building in Grass Valley, occupied as a beauty parlor and real estate office, was practically destroyed by fire. Adjacent to this building was a two-story building occupied by two stores on the lower floor and by a rooming house on the second floor. The rooming house and beauty parlor were operated by the defendant, both buildings being owned by a person other than defendant. It seems to be agreed by all concerned that the fire started in the attic over the beauty parlor and spread rapidly. The furnishings in the rooming-house and the equipment in the beauty parlor were owned by the defendant. In September, 1936, she had insured the furnishings in the rooming house for $750, and on the same day had insured the equipment in the beauty parlor for the same amount. The original application had been for the sum of $1500 on each of these two items, but the agent had refused to issue insurance for that amount on the ground the value of the property did not justify the same. A short time later defendant secured additional insurance of $750 on each parcel of property, making a total of $3,000 on the two items. At the time of the fire there was no one in the beauty parlor, and it was necessary for the firemen to break into the building.

No direct evidence was offered as to the means employed in setting the fire, if it were set, nor was there direct evidence that the defendant, or any person acting under her direction, actually applied fire to the building. The only evidence purporting to connect the defendant with the commission of any crime was certain admissions alleged to have been made to the effect that some time prior to the fire

People v. Bispham

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief