Edwards

After a jury found him guilty of burglary of a locked automobile (Pen. Code, § 459) defendant’s motion *590 for new trial was granted. On retrial, a jury again found him guilty of burglary. He appeals.

Appellant’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence rests upon conflicts and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to the route followed by police officers in pursuit of appellant. These conflicts, however, were to be resolved by the jury (People v. McAuliffe, 154 Cal.App.2d 332, 339 [ 316 P.2d 381 ]), which determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony (People v. Weathers, 97 Cal.App.2d 821, 823 [ 218 P.2d 545 ]). More important, little significance can be assigned to the pursuit route, since one witness directly identified appellant as one of the two men he saw removing articles from the automobile, and the stolen articles were in his possession on his arrest shortly after the burglary.

When called to the stand, a prosecution witness gave a San Francisco address. On cross-examination he admitted that he was presently confined in the Alameda county jail. Appellant charges the district attorney with “knowingly putting…