People v. Broyles

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 1931 No. Docket No. 2041.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for burglary, robbery, and grand theft, and that the defendant's additional claims of error were abandoned due to a failure to provide argument or authority.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt for burglary, robbery, and grand theft.
Whether the defendant's additional specifications of error, presented without argument or authority, warrant reversal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it appears beyond question that the corpus delicti of each of the several crimes of which defendant was charged was established.”

“it suffices to say that, in the opinion of this court, it was sufficient to support the verdict returned by the jury.”

“It is a universal rule that mere error is of no consequence, unless it also appear that the appellant has been prejudiced thereby”

[391]

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction rendered against him and two others for the commission of each of the crimes of burglary, robbery and grand theft. He also appeals from the order by which his motion for a new trial was denied.

The first reason assigned by appellant for reversal of the judgment is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict rendered by the jury.

The record herein discloses the fact that the several •crimes of which the defendants were convicted were accomplished by the breaking into a warehouse, “holding up” the watchman thereof, the felonious taking from his custody of 128 cases of cigarettes, together with the likewise felonious taking of an automobile truck in which the stolen cases of cigarettes were transported from the warehouse to a point where the defendants were arrested.

As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict against appellant, it appears beyond question that the

corpus delicti

of each of the several crimes of which defendant was charged was established. Although the defendants went to trial on a plea of “not guilty”, one of them frankly admitted his part in the commission of each of such several offenses, and the other defendant was identified as another of the persons who assisted therein. Among other facts, it was shown that three men were concerned in the perpetration of each of the crimes in question; that on the night when said crimes were committed and at a time approximately two or three hours preceding their commission, appellant was in the company of the defendant who admitted his guilt, and the other defendant who was identified as one who was present and who took part in committing each of the offenses of which all the defendants were accused ; that after the said crimes had been committed, and while the 128 cases of cigarettes were being transported in the automobile truck from the warehouse from which they were stolen, a roadster automobile which was owned by appellant was seen closely following the said automobile truck; that when the latter was stopped adjacent to the curb of the sidewalk the roadster automobile also stopped, and the driver of each of said automobiles “turned out its lights”—following which a witness “observed a man of

People v. Broyles

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief