People v. Young

McCOMB, J.

Appellant was convicted after trial by jury of violating section 288a of the Penal Code. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the People (respondent), the essential facts are:

July 5, 1937, defendant committed an act prohibited by section 288a of the Penal Code.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:

First: The evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.

Second: The trial court committed prejudicial error in denying (a) defendant’s motion for permission to enter an additional plea of not guilty Toy reason of insanity, and (To) defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Defendant’s first proposition is untenable. We have examined the record and are of the opinion there was substantial evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the jury may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain each and every material fact upon which the judgment of guilty was predicated.

(Thatch

v.

Livingston,

13

[702]

Cal. App. (2d) 202 [56 Pac. (2d) 549];

People

v.

Groves,

9 Cal. App. (2d) 317, 321 [49 Pac. (2d) 888, 50 Pac. (2d) 813] ;

Leavens

v.

Pinkham

&

McKevitt,

164 Cal. 242, 245 [128 Pac. 399].) We therefore refrain from further discussion of the evidence.