People v. Martin

WASTE, P. J.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to the state prison for the crime of robbery. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial.

[1]

Appellant’s first contention is that the court misdirected the jury. He complains that there is no explanation in the charge of the gist of the offense. The definition of the crime of robbery was given to the jury in one of the instructions of the court. That was sufficient. [2] Furthermore, the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury upon any proposition deemed essential by the defendant is not to be regarded as error, unless he made a request for such instruction.

(People

v.

Fice,

97 Cal. 460, [32 Pac. 531];

People

v.

White,

5 Cal. App. 329-335, [90 Pac. 471].)

As to the other alleged omissions to instruct: The charge is remarkably short, but the law of the case was correctly and, we think, sufficiently stated by the trial court in its instructions to the jury. If counsel for the defendant deemed it essential that the jury should be specifically instructed upon any particular phase of the case, it was his privilege, and duty, to request such instruction. In the absence of such request, the charge to the jury is not open to attack on the ground that it failed to specifically cover a particular point in the case, which counsel for the defendant deemed pertinent and material to the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

(People

v.

Stirgios,

23 Cal. App. 49, [136 Pac. 957]. See, also,

People

v.

Rogers,

163 Cal. 476, [126 Pac. 143];

People

v.

Wong Chow,