Blunkall

People v. Blunkall

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 369·31 Cal. App. 778·161 P. 997
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1916Crim. No. 346.California2,486 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The defendants were jointly charged by information duly filed in the superior court of Tehama County with the crime of grand larceny. The defendants Henry J. Blunkall and Oliver L. Blunkall were convicted of the crime so charged, and prosecute this appeal from the judgment of conviction and the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The defendant Scott, who was not on trial in this case, was made a witness for the people, and as such gave testimony against his . codefendants, the Blunkalls, and it is claimed by the latter: 1. That the verdict is not supported by the evidence, because the testimony of Scott was not corroborated as required by section 1111 of the Penal Code; 2. That the court committed prejudicial error in its action in disposing of certain instructions proposed by the respective parties.

The information charges and the evidence shows that the crime of which the defendants were accused and found guilty was committed on or about the twenty-seventh day of August, 1915, and that it consisted of the unlawful and felonious stealing, taking, and driving away of seven head of cattle, which were the property of one H. W. Purcell.

Purcell owned twelve head of cattle…

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.