Porter

People v. Porter

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 181·64 Cal. App. 4·220 P. 20
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1923Crim. No. 1134.California2,411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The appellants were informed against by the district attorney in a joint information. They appeared and moved for separate trials, their motions were denied, a trial was had, and, from judgments of imprisonment the defendants have appealed, each filing a separate notice of appeal and each filing a brief, but both standing on one and the same transcript.

Before proceeding further it is advisable to state by way of preface that the case made by the prosecution consisted of circumstantial evidence obtained by working backward. After the offense alleged in the information was committed, the defendants, Dillard Porter and Albert Young, produced and offered to one Robert Pilotek and William Siegman a grip containing silverware, etc., claimed by the prosecution to have been taken from the residence of the complaining witness, Mrs. Charlotte S. Mack, 1824 Jackson Street, San Francisco, on the occasion when her residence was burglarized as alleged in the information. When the possession of the silverware was traced to Pilotek and Siegman they were arrested. When they were arrested they made statements to clear themselves. Separately Pilotek made a statement to the police, which was taken…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.