Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. O. E. HOFFMAN, Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1910-04-25
Citations: 13 Cal. App. 298
Docket Number: Crim. No. 116
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. O. E. HOFFMAN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 298–298

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 116.
Third Appellate District.
April 25, 1910.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. O. E. HOFFMAN, Appellant.
Criminal Law—Arson—Absence of Argument—Error not Appearing —Affirmance.—Upon appeal by a defendant convicted of arson in the second degree, where the .case was submitted without oral or written argument for appellant, and upon examination of the record, it appears that the evidence against the defendant, though circumstantial, cannot be held insufficient to support the verdict, that the instructions were fair and complete, and that in the trial of the case all rights of the defendant were scrupulously regarded and protected, and no error appearing in the record, the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. W. Hughes, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Charles H. Crocker, for Appellant.
H. S. Webb, Attorney General, and J. Charles Jones, for .Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
The case was submitted without oral or written argument on the part of appellant. Since our attention has not been called to any alleged error, we would be justified in sustaining the action of the court below without .any examination of the record. We have, however, carefully read the transcript and we find therein nothing to demand a reversal of the judgment. The evidence against the defendant was circumstantial in its nature, but we are not prepared to say that it was insufficient to warrant the verdict of guilty of arson in the second degree.
The instructions were fair and complete and, in the trial of the ease, all the rights of the defendant seem to have been scrupulously regarded' and protected by the learned trial judge.
No error appearing, the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.
Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.