Pia

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. He moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for life. His motion in arrest of judgment was also denied, and this appeal is from the orders denying his said motions and from the judgment.

The first point urged in support of the appeal is the admission of certain testimony given by the witness Basilio Calzascia claimed to have been erroneously admitted. Prior to the calling of this witness the evidence introduced showed that at the time of the commission of the offense charged and for some time previously two young women were employed in the office of the “Marin Journal” at San Rafael, one of whom was the prosecutrix, Mary Elizabeth Grapes. In this state of the evidence the witness Calzascia testified, over the objection and exception of defendant, that about a month before the date of the attack charged he overheard two conversations, one between the defendant and Luigi Gamba, and the other between the defendant and a man named Milano; that in the first of these conversations the defendant spoke of the “girl who works for the ‘Marin Journal,’ ” and in the second he…

I concur in the judgment. Under our system questions of fact are solely for the determination of the jury, and this court is not at liberty to set aside the verdict of a jury where there is sufficient evidence in law to support it. I have no hesitation, however, in saying that after carefully reading the testimony I have grave doubts as to whether or not the defendant was the party who committed the atrocious crime. The evidence as to his identity is not at all satisfactory, but it satisfied the jury and the trial judge who presided while the witnesses were testifying; and if the defendant is the party the verdict is correct.

It too often happens that in cases of this kind, where public clamor is great, that the jury are influenced by such public clamor and excitement to give a verdict that they would not give under ordinary circumstances. If anything should hereafter transpire by which the defendant’s innocence can be established, the remedy is with the executive.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on October 13, 1910.