People v. St. Clair

California Supreme Court

People v. St. Clair

44 P. 234, 5 Cal. Unrep. 294

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1896

DocketCrim. No. 91

StatusPublished

This text of 44 P. 234 (People v. St. Clair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. St. Clair, 44 P. 234, 5 Cal. Unrep. 294 (Cal. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and now appeals, insisting that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The jury passed upon its sufficiency, and the trial court also did, when it denied a motion for a new trial. Under these circumstances, this court will not hold the evidence insufficient to support the verdict, unless defendant’s guilt has no support therein. In this case a larceny of a horse and cart was committed. A short time thereafter the defendant was seen in possession of the property, traveling rapidly away from the scene of the larceny. At this time, when seen, he acted suspiciously, as though trying to evade identification. A few hours thereafter he was [295]*295arrested twenty-three miles from the scene of the larceny, still traveling in an opposite direction, with the property in his possession. When arrested he made false statements in explanation of his possession. Upon this state of facts, we will not disturb the verdict of the jury. Judgment and order affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and now appeals, insisting that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The jury passed upon its sufficiency, and the trial court also did, when it denied a motion for a new trial. Under these circumstances, this court will not hold the evidence insufficient to support the verdict, unless defendant’s guilt has no support therein. In this case a larceny of a horse and cart was committed. A short time thereafter the defendant was seen in possession of the property, traveling rapidly away from the scene of the larceny. At this time, when seen, he acted suspiciously, as though trying to evade identification. A few hours thereafter he was [295]*295arrested twenty-three miles from the scene of the larceny, still traveling in an opposite direction, with the property in his possession. When arrested he made false statements in explanation of his possession. Upon this state of facts, we will not disturb the verdict of the jury. Judgment and order affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 P. 234, 5 Cal. Unrep. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-st-clair-cal-1896.