People v. Rose (1918) · DecisionDepot

People v. Rose

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1918 No. Crim. No. 455.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for burning insured property with intent to defraud, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its handling of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knew the property was insured.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the defendant's knowledge of insurance.
Whether the prosecuting attorney's closing remarks constituted reversible misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Obviously, the intent to defraud the insurance company is of the essence of the crime, and no such intent could exist without knowledge on the part of the accused that the property was insured.”

“The evidence of defendant’s guilt was circumstantial, but was, we think, sufficient to fix the burning of this property upon him.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. A. Smith, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Defendant was informed against, by the district attorney of Calaveras County, for the crime of willfully burning insured property with intent to defraud the insurer. He was duly tried and convicted and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison in conformity with the statute relating to indeterminate sentences.

[494]

He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The points made on appeal are: 1. That the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilty; 2. Misconduct of the prosecuting attorney.

The alleged insufficiency of the evidence is addressed specifically to the failure of the prosecution to show that defendant knew the buildings and other property destroyed by fire were insured. It is urged that, under section 548 of the Penal Code, “the motive is an essential portion of the crime, and must, therefore,\\ be expressly proven by the prosecution. ’ ’ (Citing

People

Schwartz,

32 Cal. 160, 165.) It is hence urged that the prosecution must prove that the defendant had actual knowledge that the property was insured. (Citing

Moore

State,

66 Tex. Cr. 169, [146 S. W. 183];

State

Greer,

243 Mo. 599, [Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1163, 147 S. W. 968].)

Obviously, the intent to defraud the insurance company is of the essence of the crime, and no such intent could exist without knowledge on the part of the accused that the property was insured. We are asked to read the record carefully, for it is claimed that “the record on this very important element of the offense charged is silent.”

People v. Rose

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief