People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1927 No. Docket No. 1375.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly refused a requested jury instruction on character evidence because the instruction addressed character traits not supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction regarding the defendant's character traits when no evidence was introduced to support those specific traits.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There being no testimony concerning the defendat’s character as to peace, quiet, and as a law-abiding citizen, the court properly refused to give the instruction.”

“The rule is that if any part of a single instruction should not have been given the action of the court in rejecting the whole will be affirmed.”

[127]

THOMPSON, J.

— The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery. Judgment was pronounced upon the verdict and a motion for a new trial of the action was denied. From the judgment and the order defendant prosecutes this appeal.

During the trial of the action the defendant called three witnesses who testified that his general reputation for truth, honesty, and integrity was good. The defendant requested the following instruction, which the court refused to give: “You are instructed that in all criminal cases the law permits the defendant to introduce evidence concerning his good reputation upon the points of character involved in the special ease under consideration; and in this case the law permits the defendant to introduce evidence of his good character as to peace, quiet and as a law-abiding citizen; and you are instructed that if such good character has been satisfactorily shown, it is a fact which must be taken into consideration in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and you are instructed that the reputation of the defendant, in the respect above indicated, may of itself be sufficient to create such reasonable doubt as to his guilt, that you should give him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.” It has been held in

People

Chrisman,

135 Cal. 282 [67 Pac. 136], that character or reputation for honesty is the trait involved in a charge of larceny and we think it is one of the traits involved in the charge of robbery. It will be noted, however, that the instruction here proposed by the defendant assumed that some testimony had been introduced relative to the reputation of the defendant “as to peace, quiet and as a law-abiding citizen" and that the instruction touched only upon these traits and not upon the trait of honesty. There being no testimony concerning the defendat’s character as to peace, quiet, and as a law-abiding citizen, the court properly refused to give the instruction. There being no instruction requested upon the trait of honesty, the appellant cannot now complain that the court did not give such an instruction.

(People

People v. Smith

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief