People v. Talman

BURNETT, J.

Appellant was convicted of grand larceny for having stolen a sorrel mare belonging to Charles and Alice Dreyer. There is no merit in the claim of the

[350]

insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The possession of the stolen property, a few days after the theft, by defendant and one Allen Dodge, who were jointly charged with the crime, the flight of the accused, they having been arrested one hundred and fifty miles from the scene of the offense, their presence in the immediate neighborhood at or near the time the animal was stolen, their abandonment, near the place from which said sorrel mare had been taken, of an emaciated and exhausted horse which they had been driving, furnish abundant inculpatory circumstances to warrant the conclusion of the jury. It may be added that the conviction of the guilt of defendant is greatly strengthened by the contradictory and unreasonable explanation made by himself and his associate in the crime of their possession of the mare and of their peregrinations through the country. Indeed, one can hardly read the entire record without an abiding conviction of the guilt of defendant, and any other verdict would have .resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Some contention is made that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in his address to the jury. The objection is hardly specific enough to merit attention, but we have examined the record of his remarks and find nothing outside of the legitimate range of argument or to which exception could justly be taken.

Appellant complains that the sheriff refused to conduct him to certain parts of the state that he might interview parties whose names he did not know, but by whom he expected to prove an

alibi.

The law confers upon a defendant no right to make such demand. It is, perhaps, needless to add that such practice, if permitted, would be likely to lead to great abuse without any compensating benefit. It would encourage simulated defenses, entail grievous trouble and expense and afford additional opportunities for a defendant to escape from the custody of the officer. The law is ample, in this matter, to protect the interests of one charged with a crime. Defendant could have obtained a subpoena for his witnesses, and he should have been able so to identify them that their attendance could have been secured.