People v. Valencia

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1938 No. Crim. 3160Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's murder conviction, holding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not prejudicial, the defendant failed to preserve claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered impeachment evidence does not warrant a new trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining objections to defense questions.
Whether the district attorney's remarks to the jury constituted reversible misconduct.
Whether the denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered impeachment evidence was proper.

Disposition. Affirmed; appeal from sentence dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is established that the erroneous exclusion of evidence is not prejudicial error where the excluded evidence is cumulative to other evidence which is introduced at the trial.”

“The law is settled that evidence which merely tends to impeach the testimony of a witness is not such newly discovered evidence as will form the basis for granting a motion for a new trial.”

Mo COMB, J.

—Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of murder in the second degree. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. There is also a purported appeal from the sentence.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution

[People

Dukes,

90 Cal. App. 657, 658 [266 Pac. 558]), the facts in the instant case are:

May 6, 1938, defendant went to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Fortalesa. He knocked at the front door, which was open, whereupon Mrs. Fortalesa told her husband that defendant

[128]

was at the door. Thereafter defendant shot Mr. Fortalesa, who died as a result of the wounds.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:

First: The trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining objections to the following questions:

(a) “Q. Do you recall if any time in February or March or April that you and Mary were together and Mary told you that her husband was going to get Clemente?

“A. Yes.

“MR. FERGUSON: That is objected to. Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not tending to illustrate <my issues involved in this case.

“THE COURT: The objection is sustained.”

(b) “Q. Will you just tell

what he said and what you said?

“MR. FERGUSON: Object to that as immaterial and hearsay.

“MRS. ROOT: Now, if your Honor pleases, it is not hearsay in that it was a definite threat as made against the life of Clemente Valenda.

“THE COURT: The defendant was not there, was he?

People v. Valencia

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief