Roganovich

People v. Roganovich

Good Law
77 Cal. App. 158·246 P. 132
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1926Docket No. 1311.California1,615 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

Defendants were charged with the crime of first degree arson and were convicted as charged. They moved the court for an arrest of judgment and moved for a new trial, which motions were by the trial court denied and judgment was thereupon entered. They appeal to this court from the order of the trial court denying their motion for a new trial, and from the judgment of the court entered on the verdict of the jury.

The first objection urged by defendants is the denial of their motions for a directed verdict, but they make only general reference to the transcript for a statement of what the evidence was without making any precise statement of what they claim the facts to be. A review of the reporter’s transcript shows evidence that the defendants purchased the business, stock, and equipment of a .restaurant, where the fire was alleged to have occurred, for $200. They were renting a portion of the building of one Max Stiller, who testified that about midnight on May 3d, or fifteen days before the fire, he was awakened by the defendant Roganovich, who stated that the telephone pole near the building was on fire. Before he could proceed to the building said defendant “came running back…

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.