People v. Reid

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 1926 No. Docket No. 1261.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for arson, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to burn the building and that the trial court committed no error in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for arson under Penal Code section 447.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the location and nature of the fires.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's extrajudicial statement.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's proposed jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence in the record, together with the free and voluntary admissions of the defendant at the time of her arrest, fully support the verdict of conviction.”

“The statement was not a confession of guilt of the crime charged and was not introduced as such, but was offered as an admission against interest.”

“The jury found against the defendant upon this issue and upon evidence which was competent and as complete as circumstantial evidence of acts of this character could reasonably be.”

NOURSE, J.

Defendant was tried upon an information charging the crime of arson. Prom the judgment following the verdict of conviction and from the denial of her motion for a new trial she has appealed upon a typewritten record.

The defendant occupied an apartment at 818 Stanyan Street in the city of San Prancisco. On June 21, 1924, at about 8:30 A. M. of that day, fire occurred in the apartment and members of the fire department appeared upon summons and extinguished the fire. Upon investigation it appeared that three separate fires had been set, two in a room designated as a living-room and a third in a closet

[79]

of the bedroom adjoining; and an examination of the premises immediately thereafter disclosed that all the fires had been started by the use of coal-oil. As a result of this investigation the defendant was taken into custody and made a full statement to the police and fire department officials to the effect that she started the fires for the purpose of burning her furniture so that she could collect insurance thereon, but that she did not intend to burn the building. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant claimed that while filling a lamp some coal-oil was spilled upon her corset which was lying upon a bureau or table and that when she endeavored to light the lamp the corset took fire; that she then seized the corset and ran to the closet for the purpose of procuring a bath mat to aid her to extinguish the fire and in so doing set fire to the clothing in the closet.

The evidence in the record, together with the free and voluntary admissions of the defendant at the time of her arrest, fully support the verdict of conviction.

Defendant complains of the ruling of the trial court relating to the state’s inquiries directed to a battalion chief of the fire department covering the location and lack of communication between the separate fires which were discovered when he answered the fire call. It is said that some of these questions called for the opinion and conclusion of the witness, but the witness was merely asked to detail the location of the separate fires and to state whether there was any communication between them and whether the partition between the two rooms showed that the fire had been in contact with it. The witness was merely asked to state the facts as he saw them and was not asked for expert or opinion evidence of any character.

People v. Reid

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief