Ross

People v. Ross

Good Law
115 Cal. 233·1896 Cal. LEXIS 1000·46 P. 1059
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 8, 1896Crim. 139California862 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Having been convicted of the crime of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term *237 of twenty-five years, the defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.

He was accused of robbery committed upon the person of one Grace Walls, in a house of prostitution in San Francisco.

1. The first point made is that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. It is not claimed that there was not some proof of every essential fact, but the contention is that the story told by the prosecuting witness is grossly improbable; that she made contradictory statements both in her testimony and out of court, and that she was contradicted by other witnesses. There is some plausibility in all these claims, but they g.re matters peculiarly in the province of the jury. We should not interpose unless the matter is so plain that one can see that the verdict could only have been rendered through passion or prejudice. This is not such a case.

2. If there was error in sustaining an objection made , by the prosecuting attorney to the question asked the witness Wynn, that error was cured, for the witness was recalled, and, without objection, testified fully in regard…

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.