People v. Romero

CHIPMAN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny. He appeals from the judgment on the verdict and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. He claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt, his contention being based principally upon the fact that the evidence was circumstantial. The larceny charged was the felonious taking of a sucking calf about eight months old. The criticism of the evidence is addressed to two facts—first, that proof of the ownership of the mother of the calf depended upon the marks and brands upon the cow which had not been recorded as re

[468]

quired by the statute, and, second, the circumstance that while the defendant was killing and dressing the calf the cow stood in the road bellowing and apparently showing much distress at the loss of her young, and when driven away broke from the pasture where she had been placed and returned the next morning and resumed her demonstrations of grief.

It seems to have been the theory of defendant’s counsel that the marks and brands found on the cow were no evidence of ownership, because they had not been recorded. In

People

v.

Bolanger,

71 Cal. 17, [11 Pac. 799], it was held that an unrecorded mark is some evidence of ownership. But they were referred to by the witnesses as one of the means of identifying the animal as well as tending to show ownership. The marks and brands were shown to belong to the prosecuting witness, who claimed the ownership of the cow, and there was evidence tending to prove ownership other than by these marks and brands as means of identification.

Ownership of the calf did not wholly depend upon the evidence given by the mother, to which no objection was offered, although the witnesses seem to have attached some importance to her demonstrations in confirming them in their belief, otherwise formed, that the calf killed by defendant belonged to his neighbor, Van Loan. We think there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The defendant was a witness in his own behalf. After the defendant had rested the court permitted him to be recalled for further cross-examination by the district attorney. The following proceedings occurred: