People v. Jordan

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 1925 No. Docket No. 1185.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an unacknowledged marriage certificate is inadmissible without proof of the signatory's signature and authority, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or in its remarks to the jury.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding an unacknowledged marriage certificate for lack of foundation.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance to obtain evidence for an affirmative defense.
Whether the trial court's remarks to the jury constituted prejudicial error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A marriage certificate does not prove itself. Proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to have been signed and of his authority to perform the marriage ceremony is necessary.”

“The circumstances as shown by the record do not indicate any abuse of discretion by the court in its refusal to grant a further continuance of the trial.”

CONREY, P. J.

The information charged that the defendant committed the crime of bigamy by marrying one Sadie Kessler while tie was the lawful husband of Grace Jordan. The defendant was convicted and sentenced. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defense presented by appellant was and is that the marriage to Grace Jordan was void by reason of a prior subsisting marriage of defendant to one Cora Leak.

After the defendant had testified to some facts tending to prove his marriage to Cora Leak, he offered in evidence an exemplified copy of a marriage license purporting to have been issued by a county judge in Mayes County, Oklahoma, and which had indorsed thereon a certificate of marriage purporting to have been signed by “H. A. Pearce, Christian Minister.” It was certified by 'the county clerk that said instrument was “a full, true and correct copy of marriage

[408]

license and certificate as the same appears of record and on file in my said office.”

Appellant’s first point on appeal is that the court erred in sustaining the district attorney’s objection to said-marriage license and certificate, which objection was that no proper foundation had been laid for its admission in evidence. But we think that the ruling of the court was correct. There was no testimony of any witness who saw the certificate of marriage signed by Mr. Pearce, and there was no evidence of the genuineness of the signature. A marriage certificate does not prove itself. Proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to have been signed and of his authority to perform the marriage ceremony is necessary. The record of such an unacknowledged private writing as this is not made evidence of the truth of the recitals contained in it.

(People

Le Doux,

155 Cal. 535, 550 [102 Pac. 517];

People

Spitzer,

People v. Jordan

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief