Meyers

The defendant was charged with the crime of grand larceny. An information charging the offense was filed on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1917, in the superior court of Contra Costa County. A demurrer to this information was sustained, and subsequently, on the eleventh day of September, an amended information charging the same offense was filed. Defendant was arraigned on this amended information, and was thereafter tried and convicted of the crime of petit larceny. From the judgment and order denying a new trial defendant appeals. In seeking a reversal of the judgment it is not contended, nor could it be, that there is not sufficient evidence in the record *Page 245 to prove that the stolen property was taken by defendant, the evidence upon that subject being ample; but it is claimed as grounds therefor that the evidence fails to show that the crime of petit larceny, of which the defendant was convicted, was committed within one year before the information was filed as prescribed by the statute. (Pen. Code, sec. 801.) The felony here charged included the lesser offense of which defendant was convicted. In such a case, though the felony be not barred, where the statute has run as…

The application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal of the first appellate district, division one, is denied. In denying the petition we deem it proper to say that the mere fact that an appellate court is of the opinion that certain evidence is susceptible of two reasonable inferences, one looking to the guilt of the defendant and the other to his innocence, does not warrant interference by the appellate court with the conclusion of the jury on the point. It is for the *Page 247 jury and the trial judge to determine the question of fact in such a case, and their conclusion will be sustained by an appellate court if it finds sufficient support in the evidence, including such inferences as may reasonably be drawn therefrom. The difficulty in the case at bar, taking the facts stated by the district court of appeal as the facts of the case, is that there was no testimony reasonably warranting an inference by the jury that the property alleged to have been stolen was stolen within one year prior to the filing of the information. Angellotti, C. J., Sloss, J., Melvin, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.