People v. Taminago

California Court of Appeal Nov 8, 1917 No. Crim. No. 558.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of insanity, as the defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to produce such evidence at trial. Furthermore, the court held that it could not review the claim that the defendant was sentenced while insane because the issue was not raised before the trial court.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of the defendant's insanity.
Whether the appellate court can review a claim that the defendant was sentenced while insane when the issue was not raised in the trial court.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor”

“Under such circumstances it cannot be said that evidence tending to establish the insanity of the appellant was newly discovered”

“The purpose of an appeal from a trial court is to review some action of the court, and as there was no action in this instance, no order which involved the question now sought to be presented, there-is nothing to review.”

Synopsis

• APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Gavin W. Craig, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WORKS, J.,

pro

tem.

The appellant was tried under an information charging him with the murder of one Watanabe, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. The appeal is from/ the judgment and sentence and from an order denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Both Taminago and Watanabe were Japanese and were employed in the kitchen of a hospital in the city of Los Angeles Under circumstances which need not now be detailed the evidence shows, without dispute, that Taminago shot Watanabe to death at the place where they were employed.

In support of appellant’s motion for a new trial, which was made on the ground of newly discovered evidence, there was offered an affidavit made by two registered physicians of the state. The affidavit, which was uncontroverted, contained a lengthy statement of the symptoms and condition of Taminago, and also the following conclusions of the physicians: “We are unqualifiedly of the opinion that he is insane and has been so for more than a year last past. That he is suffering from a prolonged state of depression . . . and that he is in a condition of chrome melancholia and not responsible for his actions or statements.”

We cannot say there was error in denying the motion. Motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor, as public policy demands that a litigant should be compelled to exhaust every reasonable effort to produce all his evidence at his trial.

{People

Byrne,

160 Cal. 217, [116 Pac. 521].) That such an effort was not made in the present case is indicated by the fact that, at the trial, appellant’s counsel addressed certain questions to witnesses “to show if there was any weakness of mind or anything of that sort” in the defendant and to show that he was “simple-minded.” The questions were excluded by the court upon the statement of counsel that no attempt was being made to prove insanity. Appellant’s counsel evidently knew, or believed, at the time of the trial

[240]

People v. Taminago

AI Brief

Synopsis

WORKS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief