Frank

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The attorney general makes the point that the appeal from the order is ineffectual, because the bill of exceptions does not show that the motion for a new trial was made, nor does it show what action, if any, was taken by the court thereon. The record shows that at the time the defendant was called for sentence he moved for a new trial upon the statutory grounds, the motion was denied, and defendant excepted. These facts appear only in the minutes of the court and do-not appear in the bill of exceptions. Under the decision in People v. Ruiz, 144 Cal. 251 , [ 77 Pac. 907 ], the above matters were not sufficiently authenticated, as required by rule-29 of the supreme court ( 130 Cal. xlviii , 78 Pac. xii ). (See People v. Durand, 1 Cal. App. 71 , [ 81 Pac. 672 ].) The objection, however, has been cured under rule 14 ( 130 Cal. xlii , 78 Pac. x ).

It is the settled law in this state that no person can boconvicted of a crime upon his extrajudicial admissions alone.. The corpus delicti must be…