People v. McCombs

California Court of Appeal Aug 15, 1933 No. Docket No. 2361.Published

Before: Desmond

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial judge may properly question a defendant who has testified as a witness regarding the nature of their prior felony convictions, even if those convictions were previously admitted, and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination where no offer of proof was made.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed misconduct by questioning the defendant about admitted prior felony convictions.
Whether the trial court improperly curtailed cross-examination of the complaining witness regarding preliminary hearing testimony.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of grand theft.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the cases generally hold that when the defendant has made himself a witness, questions as to the character of the offense may be asked.”

“no exception was taken to the ruling of the court at the time, nor was any offer of proof made”

“Having reviewed carefully all the evidence in this case, we see no valid reason why the verdict of the jury should be disturbed.”

DESMOND, J.,

pro

tem.

Defendant, convicted by a jury of the crime of grand theft, appeals from the judgment and from an order of the trial court denying a new trial.

The information alleged that he had suffered two prior convictions of felonies for which he had been imprisoned; the first, burglary; the second, violation of section 37, F. C. C. and National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, which convictions were admitted by the defendant.

Appellant claims that the trial court was guilty of misconduct in questioning defendant during the trial about the felonies of which he had been convicted, the convictions having been admitted by defendant at the time of arraignment; that the court erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of the complaining witness concerning his testimony at the preliminary hearing; that the verdict is contrary to the evidence by reason of the improbability that the complaining witness’ identification of the defendant was correct. Considering these objections in reverse order—it appears from the record before us that the evidence was clearly sufficient to show that the defendant is the person by whom the crime was committed.

[700]

The contention of appellant’s counsel that his cross-examination of-the complaining witness as to his testimony at the preliminary hearing was unjustifiably curtailed is based upon the court’s sustaining an objection to inquiry concerning testimony appearing on page 23 of the preliminary transcript at line 18, the objection being “on the ground that it is immaterial and not being in any wise different from what the witness testified to today”. To this the court remarked, “I will have to look.at the transcript to determine that objection. May I see the transcript, please? Well, I don’t believe that is in any way impeaching; it is practically what he testified to here. The objection is sustained.” Just what language appeared in the transcript at the point referred to we do not know, for it is not quoted in appellant’s brief, but no exception was taken to the ruling of the court at the time, nor was any offer of proof made, and we must conclude, therefore, that the conclusion of the court that the earlier testimony of this witness, at the page and line indicated, did not contradict his testimony at the trial, was well grounded.

People v. McCombs

AI Brief

DESMOND, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief