People v. Hayes

McCOMB, J.

—Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of manslaughter. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The essential facts are these:

[321]

During the course of the trial the court permitted a sound motion picture of defendant making a confession to certain police officers to be reproduced before the jury and received as evidence.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the sole proposition that

it was prejudicially erroneous for the trial court to receive as evidence a sound motion picture of defendant malting a confession to police officers.

This proposition is untenable. The law is settled that the confession of a defendant voluntarily made is properly received in evidence.

(People

v.

Ford,

25 Cal. App. 388, 419 [143 Pac. 1075]; 8 Cal. Jur. 108, see. 200.) Hence, there is no merit in defendant’s objections that the introduction in evidence of his confession by means of a sound moving picture was error because:

(1) It denied him

(a) the right to be confronted in the presence of the court by witnesses against him,

(b) The right to cross-examine the witnesses who testified against him,

(c) the privileges and immunity secured to him by the Constitution of the state of California.

(2) It was

(a) unsworn testimony,

(b) hearsay evidence.

(3) It compelled the defendant to be a witness against

himself contrary to the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to the provisions of section .13, article I, of the Constitution of the state of California and of sections 688 and 1323 of the California Penal Code.