People v. Glass

California Court of Appeal Oct 5, 1954 No. Crim. 5219Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant waived any claim of error regarding the admission of hearsay testimony by failing to object or move to strike the testimony at trial. Furthermore, the court found no prejudicial error because the jury was already aware of the defendant's prior narcotics history.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to hear hearsay testimony after counsel stipulated to its admission.
Whether the failure to move to strike prejudicial testimony at trial constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The failure to move to strike in the lower court is deemed a waiver of the point on appeal.”

“In the light of the record it cannot be assumed the incident resulted in prejudicial error.”

“Having failed to so move, the introduction of such evidence is not grounds for appeal.”

DORAN, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment following a verdict of guilty by the jury.

The record reveals that the officers entered appellant’s home and found narcotics on the person of appellant.

It is contended on appeal that, “The verdict is contrary to law” and, that the “trial court committed error by advising the jury that the district attorney and counsel for appellant could stipulate to the admission of hearsay testimony, the content of which was highly prejudicial to appellant.”

The contention relates to the action of the trial judge which as recited in appellant’s brief, is as follows:

“A Juror: Your Honor, may I ask a question?

“The Court: Yes, you may.

“A Juror: “Officer, what information did you have that led you to this particular house to look for narcotics?

“The Court: That is—just a moment. I think it is incumbent, Mrs. Collins, upon the Court to protect the record in this respect and I think that that might be calling for hearsay testimony. It is a perfectly logical question to be in a juror’s mind, but I don’t think—unless Counsel have no objection to it-

“Mr. Crail: I have no objection to it.

“The Court : What is your feeling, Mr. Solomon?

“Mr. Solomon: Your Honor has left it up to me. Your Honor has indicated-

“The Court: No, I indicated that it calls for hearsay. It is a question that might logically be in the juror’s mind but the answer is hearsay. If Counsel has no objection, the Court will permit it to be answered. If Counsel does object, the Court necessarily will have to rule against it.

“Mr. Solomon: Well, Your Honor, I feel that the statement by Mr. Crail is—I didn’t think to ask that this morning. Counsel shouldn’t have made any statement. Mr. Crail has made a statement, so under those circumstances, I will say if he has agreed to it, I have to agree to it. I will agree to it.

“The Court: All right. You may answer the question, Mr. Horstkotte.

[753]

People v. Glass

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief