Murdock

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and from a denial of his motion for a new trial. The judgment was pursuant to the verdict of a jury. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed by law.

In addition to the contention that there were errors in rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

Keeping in mind that on this appeal the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ] ; People v. Carnavacci, 119 Cal.App.2d 14, 16 [ 258 P.2d 1127 ]; People v. Renek, 105 Cal.App.2d 277, 281 [ 233 P.2d 43 ]; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434 [ 101 P.2d 527 ]), a summary of the evidence which gives support to the determination of the jury will be stated so that its sufficiency can be evaluated. Reference will also be made to certain testimony of the defendant.

Then they went to the main office of the union. The defendant told Carter to sit in the lobby and that he was going upstairs. Carter did not see the defendant again…