24 P.2d 859 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
The two defendants were tried jointly before a jury on an information charging robbery. The verdict was guilty of robbery in the second degree. From the judgment following the verdict and from the order denying their motion for a new trial both defendants have appealed upon a single typewritten record.
The appellants raise two points — the discretion of the trial court in permitting the district attorney to read to the jury testimony of the complaining witness given upon the preliminary hearing, and misconduct of the district attorney in his argument to the jury.
[1] The testimony was read under permission of section
[2] The alleged misconduct is based on the statement of the district attorney in his closing argument in which he denied responsibility for the disappearance of the complaining witness and implied that the defense might know why he was not present. This statement was manifestly made in response to some remark of the defense, but the record does not show what provoked the statement complained of. The suggestion of error does not comply with section 7 of Rule II of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal and for that reason cannot be considered. (People v. Bragdon,
[3] Furthermore, the trial court immediately instructed the jury not to regard these arguments as evidence and we cannot find that appellants were prejudiced by the occurrence.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Sturtevant, J., and Ogden, J., pro tem., concurred. *754