People v. Ilderton

California Court of Appeal Jun 18, 1936 No. Crim. 1893Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a witness regarding bias, the error was not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. The court further affirmed the constitutionality of Penal Code section 952 and found no error in the jury instructions.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 952 is unconstitutional for failing to require a full statement of the particulars of the offense.
Whether the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a witness regarding potential bias or prejudice.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give proposed instructions regarding the corpus delicti and the presumption of innocence.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The constitutionality of the section has been sustained repeatedly and the question is no longer debatable.”

“The objection was sustained and this was error because the defendant was entitled to show by this cross-examination the witness’ interest in a conviction in this case as well as his bias or prejudice against the defendant.”

“But the ruling, though error, was not shown to be prejudicial but, to the contrary, an examination of the transcript indicates that no prejudice resulted.”

NOURSE, J.

Defendant was convicted on an information charging grand theft under section 952 of the Penal Code. He made a motion for a new trial and for probation. The

[649]

former motion was denied and the latter is still pending. Defendant appealed from the order denying a new trial and entry of the judgment on the verdict was thereby suspended. He raises four grounds for reversal of the order.

(1) That section 952 is unconstitutional because it does not require a full statement of the particulars of the offense so that the defendant may know whether he is charged with larceny, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, or with any of the other unlawful means of taking the property of another. The constitutionality of the section has been sustained repeatedly and the question is no longer debatable. (See

People

Robinson,

107 Cal. App. 211, 217 [290 Pac. 470].)

(2) The restriction of the cross-examination of the witness Johnson was error. The defendant was charged with having defrauded Althea Buck in a real estate transaction. Mrs. Buck did not appear at the trial, but the chief witnesses for the state were her father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. On cross-examination Mr. Johnson was asked if he and his wife were not defendants in an action brought by Ilderton for malicious prosecution. The objection was sustained and this was error because the defendant was entitled to show by this cross-examination the witness’ interest in a conviction in this case as well as his bias or prejudice against the defendant.

(People

Fleming,

166 Cal. 357, 365 [136 Pac. 291, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 881];

People

Pantages,

212 Cal. 237, 258 [297 Pac. 890].) But the ruling, though error, was not shown to be prejudicial but, to the contrary, an examination of the transcript indicates that no prejudice resulted. The prejudice and bias of this witness against the defendant appears throughout his testimony and the jury could not have been more impressed with that fact if the witness had answered the question objected to.

People v. Ilderton

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief