Majority
p. 294PEOPLE v. ST. CLAIR. Crim. No. 91; March 17, 1896. 44 Pac. 234.
Headnote
Larceny—Evidence.—A Conviction of Larceny of a Horse and cart will not, after denial of a new trial, be disturbed, where there was evidence that the property was stolen; that defendant, when seen, shortly afterward, traveling away with it from the scene of the larceny, tried to evade identification, and when arrested with the property, a few hours afterward, twenty-three miles away, made false statements in explanation of his possession.APPEAL from Superior Court, San Joaquin County; Joseph H. Budd, Judge.
Frank St. Clair was convicted of grand larceny, and from the judgment and an order denying a new trial he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. G. Swinnerton and A. V. Scanlon for appellant; Attorney General Fitzgerald for the people.
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
p. 295
arrested 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