Russell

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of robbery and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first point urged by appellant as a reason for the reversal of the judgment is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict—it being his contention that the identification of defendant as the man who committed the offense was weak and unsatisfactory as against the positive denials by defendant of his guilt and a strong “alibi” which was presented by several disinterested witnesses. It is evident, therefore, that the real complaint of appellant is that because the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of the innocence of defendant the verdict was unjustified, and not as a matter of law that the evidence was insufficient to support thje verdict.

The rule is thoroughly settled that an appellate court cannot be a trier of fact—its function being limited to the solving of questions of law only—and that the jury and the trial judge are charged with the exclusive responsibility of determining the credibility of the various witnesses. In the instant case it is unquestioned that the evidence introduced by the prosecution was sufficient in…