People v. Gonzales

SHAW, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. In support of his appeal the defendant’s counsel urge that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and that a new trial should have been granted because of newly discovered evidence.

This court cannot' interfere with the verdict of a jury, nor with the action of the court below in refusing a new trial, on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, unless there was such a lack of evidence as to satisfy us that the court below abused its discretion in denying the new trial. A careful reading of the record shows that there was legal evidence to prove all the facts constituting the crime al

[606]

leged. “The decision of a jury upon legal evidence, in so far as this tribunal is concerned, is absolutely final.”

(People

v.

Maroney,

109 Cal. 279;

People

v.

Hotz,

73 Cal. 242.) We cannot say that the new trial upon that ground was not properly refused, or that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

Applications for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are regarded with distrust and disfavor.

(People

v.

Howard,

74 Cal. 547;

People

v.

Sutton,

73 Cal. 243;

People