People v. Goodrich
Before: Burnett
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
BURNETT, J.
Defendants were convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and they appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial.
[1]
The principal contention of appellants is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. We are satisfied, however, that the claim is without substantial merit. After reading the record, we are con- ■ vinced that not only does the evidence support the finding of the jury, but there is no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants.
[39]
It appears without conflict that on September 28, 1918, about 4 P. M., one Song Won Soob, a Korean, was in the act of boarding a railroad train at Stockton, and while getting on the train a purse containing the sum of $61.50 was abstracted and stolen from his pocket. It is a reasonable inference that the theft was committed by the defendants and one Ervine Williams acting in concert and collusion. As to which one actually picked the Korean’s pocket there is some uncertainty, but that the three were participants in the crime stands out clear enough. The prosecuting witness understood English quite imperfectly, and, testifying without an interpreter, his statements are not altogether consistent, some of them being even unintelligible, but, regarding and giving full credit to his testimony as a whole, the jury could scarcely doubt the guilt of the defendants. The following from the transcript will indicate the difficulty with which he expressed himself, and it also shows the actual participation in the crime of the three said parties: “Mr. Rendon: Q. These two take money out of your pocket ? A. Yes, two, one more, three. Q. Who take him money out of your pocket, him, ■ two or the other man or three or more or two, how many ? A. That time my money. Q. Which one ? A. Three. Q. Which one take him out of your pocket? A. That lady. Q. The lady? A. Yes, this lady and give him to him. Q. How know he take him out of your pocket, what for you know? A. [Witness shows.] Overcoat here, one man here, lady here, and one man here,( take him this way, see? Q. How know he take him, you see him take him ? A. No, I no see, I hear, no eye. Q. How you savvy [know] ? A. I no see. One man here that side, nobody see him and she take him this way [shows]. Q. How know she take him, how you savvy ? A. Oh, overcoat here hanging down, nobody see that side. Q. How you know him take him money too? A. I know him take him money. I look to see. Q. I see; you feel him right there? A. Yes, sure.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)