gno.law

People v. Bigelow

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 2883 · 1936-06-23 · Published · 14 Cal. App. 2d 723 · 58 P.2d 950 · 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 954

THE PEOPLE v. HARRY BIGELOW

Area
criminal
Panel
Crail (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendants of two robberies in the first degree and one assault with a deadly weapon. Only two points are made: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

We have read the record, and there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Whether a new trial should have been granted was a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. We are not prepared to say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial.

Defendants ’ able counsel makes an eloquent plea that this court should take the position of a thirteenth juror; that we should weigh the evidence and determine where the preponderance lies. He concludes with the following: “So, therefore, the Court itself can judge those witnesses and in judging those witnesses if the court is satisfied they have told an-untruth and has found a motive for telling that untruth, the Court certainly would be justified in this case in granting the new trial. ’ ’ This we may not do. Louder than counsel’s eloquence' there comes ringing in our ears the admonition of the people as set forth in article VI, section 4%, of the Constitution.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cited by