Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BELLA WILSON, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1885-01-20
Citations: 66 Cal. 370
Docket Number: No. 2,026
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BELLA WILSON, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 370–371

Head Matter:
[No. 2,026.
In Bank.
January 20, 1885.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BELLA WILSON, Appellant.
Criminai. Law—Verdict—Evidence.—A verdict of conviction in a criminal case will not be disturbed where there is evidence tending to sustain it.
Id.—Acts Done in Presence of Defendant—Conspiracy.—In a prosecution for larceny, evidence as to acts of another person, committed in the presence of the defendant, and showing a connection between them, are admissible,.although no conspiracy between them to steal has been shown.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The defendant was, jointly with one Lizzie Crowley, prosecuted by information, and convicted of the crime of grand larceny, in stealing eleven hundred dollars, the property of one William Morrow. On the trial, after the prosecuting witness had testified that the money was stolen from him in defendant’s room in a house of ill-fame, the prosecution offered in evidence certain bank notes of the same denomination as those alleged to have been stolen. It was further shown, that immediately after the commission of the theft, the defendant and Lizzie Crowley went out together in a carriage to a resort known as the Avenue House, and before they reached their destination one of the notes offered was changed by them at a grocery store. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, and afterwards moved to strike it out, on the ground that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. The objections and motion were overruled, and the defendant excepted. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
M. S. Horan, for Appellant.
Attorney General Marshall, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The testimony is sufficient to establish a guilty knowledge on the part of defendant, and a participation in the actual theft, as well as in the fruits of the crime.
The Court.
There was evidence in the case tending to show that the defendant was guilty. We cannot therefore disturb the verdict.
The court below refused the following request of defendant to charge the jury:
" You cannot take into consideration as against the defendant any act of Lizzie Crowley, unless the people have proven to your satisfaction that a conspiracy had been entered into between her and the defendant to commit the crime of larceny, or to take the money of the complaining witness."
We find no error in this refusal. The acts of Lizzie Crowley admitted in evidence were committed while she was present with the defendant, and of themselves showed a connection between them. Apart from any conspiracy between them to steal (of which there was no evidence), the testimony was pertinent and relevant, and, therefore, admissible.
Judgment and order affirmed.