People v. Koenig

[702]

DESMOND, J.,

pro

tem.

Each of the defendants was convicted by a jury on two counts of “contributing to delinquency” and appeal from the judgment of conviction and from the order of the trial court denying their motions for a new trial. It is urged in appellants’ brief that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts, also that appellants’ rights Avere prejudiced by certain rulings, claimed to be erroneous, made by the trial court on questions involving the admission of testimony. No authority is cited in support of this claim of error as to a single ruling, counsel being content merely to quote from the transcript of testimony many short passages showing the question, objection and ruling. In this situation the remarks of the court in

Gray

v.

Walker,

157 Cal. 381, at page 386 [108 Pac. 278, 280], are apropos: ‘ ‘ Certain errors in admitting or excluding evidence are specified. The objections, rulings, and exceptions are merely stated in appellant’s brief, without any citation of authority or any argument beyond the bald declaration that ‘in deciding these objections against the defendant the court erred’. We do not feel called upon to consider points so presented.” (Citing cases.)

The ease last mentioned is a civil action, but the courts passing upon criminal appeals have taken the same view as to the practice of submitting quotations from the transcript without argument or authority pertaining thereto.

(People

v.

Zarate,

54 Cal. App. 372, 374 [201 Pac. 955];

People

v.

Schlosser,

99 Cal. App. 593 [278 Pac. 898] ; see, also, 8 Cal. Jur. 546.) We may say, however, that in reading the testimony of this case to determine what weight should be given to the claim of appellants that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence, we were impressed with the prompt, fair and correct rulings made by the learned trial judge who heard the case and can appreciate the difficulty counsel must have experienced in any effort that may have been made to find authority to sustain appellants’ claim in regard to these rulings. We find no instance relating to any material testimony where in our opinion the trial court ruled erroneously.