Brady

The defendant appeals from a judgment and conviction of robbery, and asks a new trial upon various grounds. It is conceded that a robbery was committed, but it is claimed that the evidence at the trial was insufficient to identify the defendant as one of the robbers. Upon examination of the record, we consider the evidence amply sufficient in that regard. The robbery was committed by three men. It is now contended that the judgment must be reversed by reason of the admission in evidence of the statements of one of the robbers made to a third party, and not in the presence of the defendant, the day after the offense was committed. It is an elementary principle of law, which has been recognized by many of the decisions of this court, that the declarations and statements of a co-conspirator, made after the accomplishment of the conspiracy, in the absence of the defendant, are inadmissible: People v. Moore, 45 Cal. 19 ; People v. English, 52 Cal. 212 ; People v. Aleck, 61 Cal. 137 ; People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 Pac. 783 ; People v. Irwin, 77 Cal. 494 , 20 Pac. 56 ; People v. Dilwood, 94 Cal. 89 , 29 Pac. 420 . But the present objection and exception do not furnish a ease…