People v. Hughes

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 1954 No. Crim. 2922Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence of a defendant's prior assault on the victim was admissible to rebut the defendant's evidence of good character and that, regardless, any potential error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant regarding a prior assault on the victim.
Whether the district attorney's interruption of the defendant's testimony deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But even if the admission of the evidence as to the prior assault was erroneous the strength of the evidence against defendant is such that the possible error cannot have caused a miscarriage of justice and does not constitute a ground for reversal.”

NOURSE, P. J.

Appellant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245) allegedly committed on December 7, 1952, and with two prior felony convictions. He pleaded not guilty to the assault but admitted the two prior convictions. He was found guilty by the court, jury trial having been waived.

On December 7, 1952, an assault with a knife was perpetrated on appellant’s wife, with whom he was not living. In the assault she received numerous cuts, of which some nearly severed two of her fingers. She and a daughter of hers by a former marriage, who lived with her and who was present at the assault, testified that it was committed by defendant. A neighbor testified that she saw defendant enter, by a fire escape, the house in which his wife lived, saw the assault itself through a window and saw defendant leave along the fire escape, having blood on him. Appellant testified in his own defense. His testimony and that of two other defense witnesses related mainly to the fact that on December 5, 1952, an assault had been committed on the' wife by another man.

There is no contention that the conviction was not sup-1 ported by the evidence. Counsel, appointed by this court to represent appellant, makes two points and diligently argues them, but neither calls for a reversal.

(1) The

first is that the district attorney was erroneously nermitted, over objection, to question defendant as to an

[769]

assault made by him on his wife two years previous, contrary to the general rule as to inadmissibility of such evidence. “The general tests of the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case are: . . . does it tend logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference, to establish any fact material for the people, or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense? If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.”

(People

Peete,

People v. Hughes

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief