People v. Appleton

California Court of Appeal Jul 2, 1957 No. Crim. 2750Published

Before: Warne

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to present evidence regarding the voluntariness of his confession before its admission, the error was not prejudicial and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether the trial court improperly restricted the scope of cross-examination of the deputy coroner.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to introduce evidence to rebut the voluntariness of his confession prior to its admission into evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is generally recognized that the scope of cross-examination should be confined to matters which have been elicited from the witness on direct examination.”

“Before the confession is received, however, the defendant if he requests it must be accorded the opportunity to introduce evidence to overcome the prima facie showing”

WARNS, J. pro tem.

A jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree and fixed the penalty at confinement in the state prison for life. Defendant moved for a new trial and also moved to vacate and set aside the verdict and for modification of the judgment. His motions were denied, and judgment was entered sentencing defendant to imprisonment in the state prison for life. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying him a new trial.

On September 21, 1956, in response to a call from the sheriff’s office, Police Officer Ellsworth Gordon went to 909% South “A” Street in the city of Madera. Upon arriving there shortly after 6 p. m., he noticed a colored man, later identified as the defendant, standing near the cabin. The defendant pointed to the cabin and said, “In there.” In the rear room of the cabin the officer found the unclad body of the decedent, one Milton Hall, face down on a bed. There were some rags over his head and buttocks. There was considerable blood on the floor and under the bed, and there was blood spattered on the wall. An electric iron was found on the bed near the decedent’s head. The defendant having followed the officer into the cabin was asked: “Did you do this?” Defendant, in replying said, “Yes, I did it.” He was thereupon placed under arrest and later charged with murder.

An autopsy was performed which disclosed that decedent’s death was caused by tears and contusions of the brain. The autopsy surgeon testified that the injuries to decedent’s head were such as could have been caused by blows from an electric iron like the one found on the bed near decedent’s head.

A Mr. Ball testified that he saw the defendant come out of the cabin just prior to the time that the police officer arrived, and that defendant said to him, “Call the law, I have killed my buddy.”

After defendant’s arrest, he was taken to the county jail

[242]

where, in the presence of a court reporter, he was questioned by a police officer concerning the commission of the crime. The court reporter recorded the questions and answers during the interrogation. Both the reporter and the police officer testified that the defendant admitted that he had killed the decedent by striking him on the head with the electric iron, and that he said he did so because he wanted to kill the decedent.

People v. Appleton

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief