Majority
The appellant, Verlia Brunson, was jointly charged with defendants Hurshel Neal and Jeanne M. Kelly with the crimes’ of robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery. It was charged in the information that appellant ■had been convicted of felonies in the states of Michigan and Illinois and had served terms of imprisonment in each of those states. At a trial before the court without a jury each defendant was convicted on both charges and the charges of prior convictions were found to be true. The appeal is by defendant Brunson alone from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Appellant now contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. The prosecuting witness, Joe Pearson, testified that at midnight of December 31, 1937, he was at the Biltmore hotel with a companion and that he had parked his car opposite the Fifth Street entrance to the hotel. Shortly after midnight he left the hotel and went to his ear where he waited for his com
At the trial appellant presented the testimony of several witnesses in an effort to establish an alibi. According to these witnesses appellant had been in the town of Cucamonga at approximately 11:30 P. M. on December 31, 1937. On the following morning just prior to the Tournament of Roses parade he was seen driving toward Pasadena. In support of his motion for a new trial appellant presented affidavits of several additional witnesses, the contents of which substantially corroborated the testimony of the so-called alibi witnesses who had testified at the trial. The evidence offered by means of the affidavits was merely cumulative and it was within the discretion of the trial court to deny the motion based upon them. Moreover, there was no showing that appellant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced the affiants as witnesses at the trial. The burden was upon appellant to establish that the proffered evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time for presentation at the trial. (People v. Byrne, 160 Cal. 217 [ 116 Pac. 521 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452 [ 229 Pac. 40 ].)
No abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial has been shown. The judgment and order are affirmed.
Grail, P. J., and MeComb, J., concurred.
Cases cited
- People v. Byrne 160 Cal. 217 p. 657
- People v. Yeager 194 Cal. 452 p. 657