Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE v. ALSTON.
From a judgment of conviction of the crime of “grand theft,” and a denial of his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals, urging, as grounds for reversal of the judgment and the court's order, the following points: “1. Insufficiency of the evidence. 2. Errors in instructions.” We find no merit in either of these contentions.
As there is no new question involved in this appeal, we feel that no useful purpose will be served by reciting in detail the evidence bearing upon the charge, nor in an extended discussion of the evidence or the cases cited by counsel in their briefs.
A careful examination of the record satisfies us that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the jury necessarily implied in their verdict of guilty of the four elements necessary to convict one of the offense here charged, namely: “(1) An intent to defraud; (2) an actual fraud committed; (3) false pretenses used for the purpose of accomplishing the fraud; and (4) the accomplishment of the fraud by means of the pretenses used.” People v. Harrington, 92 Cal. App. 245, 267 P. 942, 946.
As to appellant's attack upon certain instructions given by the court, we have examined all of the instructions given and are of the opinion they fairly state the law relating to the charge involved. It is indeed elementary that the instructions must be considered as a whole in ascertaining their true meaning. The instructions when so viewed are not subject to the criticism urged.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
HAHN, Justice pro tem.
We concur: CONREY, P. J.; HOUSER, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Cr. 2517.
Decided: July 06, 1934
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)