People v. James

California Court of Appeal Oct 5, 1928 No. Docket No. 1712.Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the prosecution erred in attempting to impeach its own witness based solely on the witness's failure to provide favorable testimony, the error was not reversible because the defendants' guilt was established by positive, uncontradicted evidence.

Issues

Whether the prosecution may impeach its own witness when the witness merely fails to testify favorably for the party calling them.
Whether the district attorney's improper attempt to impeach a witness constituted reversible error in light of the evidence presented.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The mere failure of a witness to testify favorably for the party calling him, unaccompanied by any testimony which would tend to the prejudice of the case of the party calling the witness, will not entitle such party to show that the witness has elsewhere made contrary statements concerning the facts sought to be elicited from him.”

“The defendants were convicted upon positive, direct testimony, which was wholly uncontradicted.”

“no miscarriage of justice could possibly have resulted from the remarks of the district attorney complained of.”

YORK, J.

The defendants James and Whitfield were convicted on an information charging robbery as stated in count two of the information. Counts numbers one, three, four, five, and six were dismissed during the trial on motion of the district attorney. Their eo-defendants Reynolds and Sampson were acquitted. From the judgments of conviction and the order denying their motion for a new trial this appeal is taken by defendants James and Whitfield.

[249]

Count two of the information charged all four defendants with robbery of the cashier of the Toloma Creamery Company, in the city of Los Angeles, on March 31, 1928. The cashier and two of his assistants identified the two defendants Whitfield and James as being the two men who perpetrated the robbery. Another witness testified that she was present when all four of the defendants returned from the robbery and that she saw them divide the money.

Reversal of the order denying a new trial and reversal of the judgment is sought on account of certain questions asked by the district attorney, in which he attempted to cross-examine one of his own witnesses, Gerald Reynolds, who was the brother of defendant Leo Reynolds, who was found not guilty. Objection was made to the statements made by the deputy district attorney, as follows:

“If the court please, the People are taken by surprise with the testimony given by this witness and desire to cross-examine him for the purpose of laying a ground for impeachment.

“The Court: All right, you may do so.

“Mr. Shaw: Well, we object—

“Mr. Crail: What is that?

“Mr. Shaw: All right.

“The Court: You may proceed.”

Thereupon, the deputy district attorney attempted apparently to lay a foundation for the introduction of evidence (by way of impeachment) that the witness, Gerald Reynolds, made statements to officers Chitwood and Luquet that he had a certain conversation with his brother after the robbery about the commission of the crime and that he had a conversation with Mr. Sampson concerning the hold-up; and that he had conversed with the defendants as to money taken and about checks taken during the hold-up. Also that the witness had told the officers about conversations he had with the defendants, prior to the robbery, concerning the commission of the crime, and as to the advisability of holding up the place.

People v. James

AI Brief

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief