People v. De Angelli

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 1917 No. Crim. No. 680.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and that the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary errors regarding cross-examination and the use of a memorandum were without merit.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of murder in the second degree.
Whether the prosecuting officer's comments regarding the defendant's need for an interpreter constituted prejudicial misconduct.
Whether the cross-examination of the defendant exceeded the scope of the direct examination.
Whether a memorandum used by the prosecutor during cross-examination required the foundational showing of a confession.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.”

“The rule that confessions must be voluntary is limited to confessions of guilt, and has no application to admissions of fact which merely tend to show guilt.”

“even if they could be regarded as such, no assignment thereof was made during the trial nor any request made for an admonition to the jury with relation thereto; consequently the objection here made for the first time cannot be considered.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. F. B. Ogden, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

KERRIGAN, J.

The defendant was charged by information with the crime of murder, it being alleged that on August 20, 1916, in the county of Alameda, he willfully and with malice aforethought killed Stefano Coppi. He was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals from said judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

As to certain acts on the part of the prosecuting officer, claimed by appellant to constitute misconduct, it is true that the former repeatedly during the examination of the defendant stated that the latter was able to testify without the aid of an interpreter, but we are unable to understand how the defendant was prejudiced thereby. From the record it appears that such assertions were not without cause, and they were made with a view to inducing the court to change its ruling that the testimony of the defendant should be given through an interpreter. It may also be said in this connection that if these repeated statements of the representative of the people were made without sufficient cause and with an improper motive, this was doubtless apparent to the jury, and would operate rather to the benefit of the defendant than to his prejudice. Moreover, with reference to the several instances now claimed to constitute misconduct on the part of the prosecuting officer, even if they could be regarded as such, no assignment thereof was made during the trial nor any request made for an admonition to the jury with relation thereto; consequently the objection here made for the first time cannot be considered.

(People

Metzler,

21 Cal. App. 80, [130 Pac. 1192].)

During the direct examination of the defendant, and in order to clear up some doubts concerning certain circumstances of Ms early history, the court asked him several questions. Thereafter the district attorney was permitted over objection to. cross-examine the defendant concerning the matters therein referred to. It is now claimed that this cross-

[718]

People v. De Angelli

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief