People v. Flores

CASHIN, J.

The defendant was charged by an information filed in the superior court of the county of Fresno with the offense of burglary and was convicted. An appeal was taken from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

It is contended that the court misdirected the jury on matters of law, erred in its refusal to give an instruction requested by the defendant, and that a statement of the law by the prosecuting attorney in the course of his argument to the jury was prejudicially erroneous.

The evidence adduced shows that the dwelling-house of P. Bandoni, situated in the town of Firebaugh, in Fresno County, was on the night of December 5, 1926, between the hours of 7:30 and 10 o ’clock P. M., entered, and a watch and a sum of money consisting of silver and copper coins taken therefrom. The crime was committed during the absence of Bandoni and his family, and it appears that an entrance was effected through one of the windows in a bedroom of the dwelling. Upon the return of the owner and his family the screen over the window was found to have been cut and removed and one of the panes of glass nearest to the window lock was broken. Bloodstains were discovered near the window and also upon a bed in the bedroom and in other parts of the house.

At about 10:30 o’clock on the same night defendant was arrested in a hotel near the scene of the crime. At the time of his arrest he was wearing a bandage on his right-hand, and there was found upon his person the stolen watch and a small sum of money in silver and copper coins. The defendant denied all knowledge of the crime, and the witnesses agree that at the time of his arrest he appeared to be intoxicated. It was further shown that the thumb of defendant’s right hand and his forefinger had been recently cut. The cuts, according to his testimony and that of others —who testified that they were in his company during the

[237]

day and evening of the crime—were received in a scuffle at the hotel. The defendant was unable to account for his possession of the watch, and denied any recollection of his movements during the evening preceding the crime.

The instruction of which the defendant complains was as follows: “Everyone is presumed to intend to do that which he in fact does, and also is presumed to intend all the natural and probable consequences of his own acts.”