People v. Pauli

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 1922 No. Crim. No. 1047.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly struck character testimony where the witnesses lacked sufficient acquaintance with the defendant to establish a general reputation, and correctly refused instructions that misstated the law regarding forgery and the timing of demurrers.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in striking character testimony of witnesses who lacked sufficient knowledge of the defendant's general reputation.
Whether the trial court erred in modifying requested jury instructions regarding the elements of forgery and the nature of the information.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing instructions that functioned as an untimely demurrer to the information.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A stranger in the community, working for a single employer therein for a few months, going about little and forming no associations, cannot be said to have a general reputation for truth, honesty, and integrity therein to which anyone can testify.”

“Either of said acts under said section constituted a crime, and hence the defendant’s requested instruction to the jury to acquit the defendant if they should find that he made and forged said check but did not utter the same is unsound in law”

[595]

RICHARDS, J.

The defendant was charged in the information with the crime of making and uttering a forged check with intent to defraud. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for the term provided by law. His appeal is from the judgment of conviction.

The first contention which the appellant makes upon said appeal is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in granting the motion of the prosecution to strike out the testimony of two certain character witnesses who had testified to the good reputation of the defendant for truth, honesty, integrity, and veracity. The record touching this contention shows the following state of facts: The defendant called three witnesses to his good reputation— Manuel Picano, E. H. Crane, and Daniel B. Wade. The first of these witnesses, Picaño, who was a life insurance agent and postmaster, and who also kept a general merchandise store in San Lorenzo, California, gave strong testimony as to defendant’s good reputation while he was working in and about San Lorenzo from about April, 1920, to October, 1920, and his testimony was allowed to stand. The next witness, E. H. Crane, was an orchardist at San Lorenzo, for whom the defendant had worked from March to October, 1920, and who on direct examination, in response to the usual inquiries, stated that he knew the defendant’s reputation in that community and that it was good. On cross-examination, however, it developed that his opinion on that subject was based wholly on his personal dealings with the defendant and the quality of his work with him; that the defendant was a stranger to him and to the community when he came to work for him; that he lived on his place, went out little, did not form any associations and left the community when he had ceased to work for him. The witness further testified that he never heard his reputation discussed; never heard anyone mention his name or refer to him in any way. The court upon this showing granted a motion to strike out the testimony of this witness. The next witness, Daniel B. Wade, also answered the usual inquiries upon direct examination by testifying that he knew the defendant’s reputation and that it was good, but upon cross-examination it developed that the defendant had come, a stranger, to work for him on his ranch near Alviso in the county of Santa Clara in the fall of the year

People v. Pauli

AI Brief

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief