People v. Middleton

California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 1924 No. Crim. No. 1132.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, the admission of the defendant's confession, the admission of evidence regarding a prior robbery to establish motive, or the scope of the defendant's cross-examination. The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for first-degree murder.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding witness credibility and confessions.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior robbery to establish motive.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's confession and allowing the scope of cross-examination.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of first-degree murder.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it cannot be said that it was error for the court in giving the law to have conformed to the language of the code”

“The evidence of the prior crime was admitted because the commission of the other crime was directly connected with the murder of the police officer and clearly showed a motive for the latter deed.”

“The question whether the confession was ‘free and voluntary’ or the result of inducement, coercion, intimidation or duress exerted by the officer, was one peculiarly within the province of the trial judge to decide upon the facts.”

LANGDON, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of murder.

The first objection urged is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that “a witness false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.” It is true that a similar instruction was criticised in the case of

People

Plyler,

121 Cal. 160 [53 Pac. 553], However, in a later decision, our supreme court, after discussing the Plyler case, said: “But nowhere has it been decided, nor indeed could it with reason be held, that it is error for the court to instruct in the language of our written law. This is substantially what the court here did, and so, while the instruction cannot be commended as a full or clear exposition of the meaning of the section of the code, still it cannot be said that it was error for the court in giving the law to have conformed to the language of the code, and to have omitted what that code itself omits.”

(People

Dobbins,

138 Cal. 694, 698 [72 Pac. 339, 341]. See, also,

People

Treadwell,

69 Cal. 226, 238 [10 Pac. 502].) The objection urged by the appellant to the instruction above set forth is that the jury would be compelled under its language to construe a false statement regarding some minor or unimportant matter as a reflection upon the truth of all the testimony given by the same witness. In the instant case such a possibility was lessened by the fact that the trial court, at the request of the defendant, also gave the following instruction to the jury: “You are instructed that if you believe any witness examined before you during the trial of this case has willfully sworn falsely as to any

material matter,

it is your duty to distrust his entire evidence.”

Complaint is made of the refusal of the trial court to give the following instruction at the request of the defendant: “If you believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant has at any time made any admissions

People v. Middleton

AI Brief

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief