People v. Converse

California Court of Appeal Nov 1, 1915 No. Crim. No. 598.Published

Before: Lennon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the prosecution to introduce hearsay testimony under the guise of completing a conversation, which improperly allowed the defendant's wife to testify against him indirectly.

Issues

Whether evidence of a witness's prior statements regarding the defendant's guilt was admissible to impeach credibility.
Whether evidence of prior sexual acts between the defendant and the victim was admissible.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's requested jury instructions.
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to elicit hearsay testimony on redirect examination.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court erred to the pronounced and positive prejudice of the defendant in its ruling permitting the district attorney to ask the complaining witness upon redirect examination the question”

“The vice of the question complained of is palpable. It called for hearsay upon hearsay; and its allowance permitted the district attorney to do indirectly that which the law would not have permitted him to do directly”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order denying a new trial. W. M. Conley, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LENNON, P. J.

The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of rape upon his fifteen year old daughter. He was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying him a new trial.

The witness Charley Converse having testified to certain circumstances which tended to discredit the complaining witness, it was proper for the people to show, as was done, that he told certain people that he knew that the defendant was guilty, but would not be “fool enough to swear to it in court.” This and other statements of the witness along similar lines went to the bias and credibility of the witness, and were therefore admissible in evidence, a proper foundation therefor having been previously laid.

Evidence of prior acts of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the complaining witness was properly admitted as tending to show tlm adulterous disposition of the defendant.

(People

Boero,

13 Cal. App. 687, [110 Pac. 525] ;

People

Koller,

142 Cal. 621, [76 Pac. 500] ;

People

Stratton,

141 Cal. 604, [75 Pac. 166];

People

Castro,

133 Cal. 12, [65 Pac. 13];

People

Price,

26 Cal. App. 544, [147 Pac. 591].)

The case of

People

Ah Lean,

7 Cal. App. 628, [95 Pac. 380], is cited as an authority to the contrary. As was said in

People v. Converse

AI Brief

Synopsis

LENNON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief