Pedel

Defendant, Pedro Pedel, was charged by information with the crime of robbery. Upon trial before a jury he was convicted and the degree found to be robbery of the second degree. Thereafter defendant moved for a new trial and the motion was denied, whereupon the court pronounced its judgment.

The appeal rests upon three points, viz., first, that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the verdict of the jury; second, that the court erred in refusing to advise the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty; third, error in the refusal of the trial court to give certain instructions requested by defendant.

The evidence is wholly that presented by the prosecution, and in itself not inherently weak or improbable. The prosecuting witness was a Japanese, and he testified that on October 27, 1926, he was proceeding unaccompanied along one of the public streets of Emeryville, in Alameda County, at or about the hour of 9:30 P. M. There was no one else on the street at that time in the immediate locality as far as could be observed. Suddenly and without warning, the prosecuting witness testifies, he was struck from behind, and upon turning was confronted by defendant, whom he identified at…