People v. Faust

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1934 No. Docket No. 95.Published

Before: Jennings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for grand theft of a bovine animal, finding sufficient evidence of intent to steal, adequate corroboration of accomplice testimony, and no error in the trial court's evidentiary or instructional rulings.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for grand theft of a bovine animal.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding certain hearsay testimony regarding a conversation at the district attorney's office.
Whether the accomplice's testimony was sufficiently corroborated.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give requested jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We know of no rule of evidence which permits a defendant in a criminal action to testify that, during a conversation which occurred between himself and some other person, certain inquiries were directed to him and certain statements were made”

“The record shows that appellant was permitted to correct certain testimony given by him and that he did fully explain the reason for the correction. There was, therefore, no occasion for the giving of this instruction.”

[551]

JENNINGS, J.

The defendant, together with one J. F. Davis, was charged in an information filed by the district attorney of Riverside County with the crime of grand theft in that he unlawfully and feloniously took personal property of another, to wit, a bovine animal. Upon arraignment, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict that he was guilty of the offense charged in the information. Thereafter he presented to the trial court a motion for new trial which was denied and judgment was thereupon rendered which provided that as punishment for the commission of the offense he be confined in the state prison for the term prescribed by law. The defendant then perfected this appeal from the judgment of conviction and from the court’s order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant specifies four grounds of appeal upon which he relies. These are, first, that the verdict returned by the jury is contrary to law and is not supported by the evidence; second, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit appellant to give certain testimony; third, that there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an admitted accomplice to justify the verdict of conviction; fourth, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions offered by appellant.

The record shows that evidence which tended to prove the following facts was submitted to the jury: On September 4, 1933, appellant proposed to his co-defendant that the latter accompany him on a fishing trip of several days’ duration; that the two men set out in a small Chevrolet truck which was the property of and driven by appellant; that they went to the river, where they remained for a period of about one-half hour; that they left the river and proceeded to another location where they remained for approximately two hours; that they resumed their journey and about sundown they came upon a number of cattle; that among these cattle was a heifer about 9 to 12 months old, which was the property of one Wiley Hill, the complaining witness; that appellant suggested to his co-defendant Davis that the latter shoot the animal; that Davis acceded to the suggestion and shot the calf; that the two men then removed the entrails and loaded the carcass in

[552]

People v. Faust

AI Brief

JENNINGS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief