Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY BIGELOW et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1936-06-23
Citations: 14 Cal. App. 2d 723
Docket Number: Crim. No. 2883
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY BIGELOW et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 14
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 2883.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
June 23, 1936.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY BIGELOW et al., Appellants.
John S. Cooper for Appellants.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
CRAIL, P. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendants of two robberies in the first degree and one assault with a deadly weapon. Only two points are made: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
We have read the record, and there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Whether a new trial should have been granted was a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. We are not prepared to say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial.
Defendants ' able counsel makes an eloquent plea that this court should take the position of a thirteenth juror; that we should weigh the evidence and determine where the preponderance lies. He concludes with the following: "So, therefore, the Court itself can judge those witnesses and in judging those witnesses if the court is satisfied they have told an-untruth and has found a motive for telling that untruth, the Court certainly would be justified in this case in granting the new trial. ' ' This we may not do. Louder than counsel's eloquence' there comes ringing in our ears the admonition of the people as set forth in article VI, section 4%, of the Constitution.
Judgment affirmed.
Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro tern., concurred.