Flavin

The appellants, with one John 0. Carroll, were jointly charged with grand larceny. Carroll was tried separately, and appellants, by consent, together. A full statement of the facts is found in People v. Carroll, 20 Cal. App. 41 , [ 128 Pac. 4 ], and also a complete answer to the contention of appellants that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for grand larceny, as the evidence for the people at the two trials was substantially the same.

Appellants complain of the ruling of the court in denying their challenge for cause of certain persons examined to serve as jurors.

One of these was John 0. Derr and the point is that he declared that he would hold it against defendants if they did not testify and also that the circumstance of their having been charged with a crime and of being prosecuted by the district attorney excited in his mind some suspicion of their guilt. His answers, however, were such as might be expected from any layman. When his attention was called to the law on the subject he asserted that he would be governed by it and that he would start in with the presumption of innocence and require the prosecution to prove the guilt of defendants beyond a…