People v. Wong Chong Suey

Citations

• 110 Cal. 117
• 42 P. 420
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1026

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Circumstantial Evidence—Conflict —Province of Jury.—Where there was sufficient circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution to authorize the jury to believe in the guilt of a defendant accused of grand larceny, the fact that the evidence on behalf of the defendant tended to account for the money found in his possession, and to rebut the suspicious circumstances, only raised a conflict in the evidence which it was the province of the jury to determine.</p> <p>Id.—Identification of Money—Sufficiency of Proof.—The prosecution is not required definitely to identify the money found upon the person of the defendant as being that taken from the safe of the prosecuting vitness; but if it is shown to be the same in amount and in the same coin and denomination,- and that defendant was in a situation where he could have taken it, and there are other circumstances of a suspicious nature, the evidence is sufficient to go to the jury upon the question of identity of the money, and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that fact is for the jury.</p> <p>Id.—Province of Jury—Conolosiveness of Verdict.—When there is any evidence legally tending to sustain a fact, the question whether it amounts to proof of that fact is for the jury, and their finding will not be disturbed upon appeal, unless the evidence preponderates so greatly against the verdict as to make it manifest that the verdict is th& result of passion or prejudice.</p>