People v. Washington

The People are appealing not from the judgment of this ease, but only from the order of the court granting the defendant a new trial.

A careful perusal of the evidence shows, even from the cold ' record, several reasons why the order granting a new trial was made. Conflicts in the evidence appear, even conflicts in statements of a witness on direct and cross-examination, and the evidence casts doubt as to the sobriety of a witness at the time of the happening of the incidents to which he was testifying. Where conflicts are disclosed by the record we will not disturb the order of the trial court, as the trial court had before it at the time of the hearing the witnesses themselves and was in better position to pass upon the questions involved on the motion for a new trial than this court could possibly be.

In People v. Canfield, 173 Cal. 309 [ 159 Pac. 1046 ], cited in the foregoing case, the court states: " The judge who presided at the trial of the cause, who heard the testimony, who observed the jurors and had an opportunity also of testing the truth of the defendant’s statements by noticing his de meaner, was in a peculiarly favorable position for determining justly the…