Frank

The appellant was found guilty of the crimes of robbery and burglary and appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. This same action was before the supreme court ( 193 Cal. 474 [ 225 Pac. 448 ]) and later before this court. ( 71 Cal. App. 575 [ 236 Pac. 189 ].) The first contention of appellant for reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in asking appellant on cross-examination the following question: “What name, if any, did you give to officers Rich and Murphy when you were first arrested?” This question appellant answered: “Williamson.” From what had transpired during the trial just preceding the asking of this question, it is clear that its purpose was to show that appellant had given a false name when arrested. The question was objected to upon the ground that it was not proper cross-examination. This objection was overruled. Appellant had not in his direct examination given any testimony relative to the name used by him at the time of his arrest or any other testimony that would jusify the asking of this question on cross-examination. To ask it under such circumstances was error. (People v. Mohr, 157 Cal. 732, 736 [ 109 Pac. 476 ].)…