Redmond

Defendant and another were jointly charged with the crime of robbery. Defendant was convicted and appeals from the judgment and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The only point made by appellant is thus stated: “The court erred in admitting the testimony of police officer, Fred G. Trosper, over the objection of the defendant concerning a revolver which he saw in the defendant’s possession on the 8th day of February 1924, having no bearing or no connection with the crime with which appellant is charged, the robbery in question was alleged to have been committed on the 22d day of February, 1924. There was no evidence in the case that this defendant had in her possession a gun, or was there any evidence or testimony of any witness that the gun to which Police Officer Trosper testified was ever seen in the defendant’s possession, or in her immediate presence on the 22d of February, 1924. It is obvious that the jury was influenced in finding their verdict of first degree robbery on the testimony of said police officer, Fred G. Trosper. People v. Tucker, 104 Cal. 443 [ 38 Pac. 195 ]; People v. Lane, 100 Cal. 385 [ 34 Pac. 856 ].”

The “point” presented by appellant is…