McNamara

People v. McNamara

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 717·94 Cal. 509·29 P. 953
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 12, 1892No. 20877California1,186 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the state prison.

It is urged with much earnestness that the judgment should be reversed, because the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. We find, however, from an inspection of the testimony, that this contention cannot be sustained without a judicial invasion of the province of *512 the jury, and a violation of the well-established rule applicable to cases in which there is a substantial conflict of evidence. Runyon, the prosecuting witness, testified that on the night of December 31, 1890, he.met McNamara and another man, and stopped and conversed with them; that they walked along together about a block, when a man came out from an alley, and approaching him from behind, grabbed him around the throat, pulled him back, and strangled him; that while he was being thus held, the other persons—McNamara and his companion—went through his pockets and took his valuables, a diamond pin, a watch, and twenty-seven dollars in gold and silver.

During the redirect examination of the prosecuting witness, he gave testimony of the same character and upon the same topic as in Ms direct and…

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.