The defendant, Wendell Long, and one Edward Romero were jointly indicted in Klamath county of the crime of burglary not in a dwelling. Defendant was tried separately by the court without a jury, was found guilty, and sentenced tо a ten-year term in the penitentiary, from which he appeаls. This case is a sequel to
State v. Long,
There was substantial evidence tending to prove the following facts. The Medo-Bel Dairy in Klamath Falls was broken into sometime between 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 1965 and 5:00 a.m. on April 8, 1965. An attemрt was made also to break into the nearby Lucas Furniture Store аfter 1:30 a.m. on April 8. About $15.35 in coins, mostly pennies, nickels and dimes, ivas stolen from the Medo-Bel Dairy. Long met Romero in a Klamath Falls bar at about 9:30 p.m. on April 7. The duo made the rounds of the bars until about midnight when they wеnt into the Chuck Wagon where they stayed until the bar closed at about 1:10 a.m. on April 8. Shortly thereafter they were observed by one of defendant’s witnesses traveling together in an automobile borrowed by Romero from Jeanette Mars. Long and Romero were apрrehended by city police officers about 2:34 a.m. on April 8, on Main Street in Klamath Falls. Romero was driving the automobile and Long was riding in the front seat with him. The men had been under observation by the officers fоr only a few minutes before they were stopped. The officеrs, with the permission of Romero, searched the vehicle and fоund under the front seat a crowbar and *396 sledge hammer. Laboratory tests proved that the sledge hammer had been used both in the Medо-Bel burglary and in the attempted burglary of the Lucas Furniture Store, and that the crowbar had been used in an attempt to pry open a door of the furniture store. About $9.98 in pennies, nickels and dimes was found сoncealed under the front floor mats of the vehicle.
Defendant’s brief contains only one assignment of error. It alleges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittаl. The motion was made immediately after the state rested and wаs based on the following limited grounds:
(1) That the state had failed to prove that the building known as the Medo-Bel Dairy, which defendant was acсused of burglarizing, was not a dwelling, and
(2) That the state had failed to prove ownership of the building.
The motion was denied and thereafter defendant called three witnesses to testify on his behalf and took the stand himself. There was no rebuttal by the state.
Defendant did not renew his limited motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the casé. Except on the limited grounds set out above, defendant did not at any time in the trial court challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of guilt. Nevertheless, his brief in this court is devoted sоlely to the argument that the state failed to offer evidence sufficient to connect the defendant with the burglary of the Medo-Bеl Dairy. Since defendant failed to raise that issue in the trial court, he cannot raise it for the first time in this court. As we reiterated in
State v. Abel,
There is nothing about this ease to warrant any relaxation of the general rule, or to indicate that it would be of any benefit to the defendant. The judgment is affirmed.