People v. Mori

WEYAND, J.,

pro tem.

From a judgment of the superior court of the county of Sacramento, adjudging defendant guilty of a violation of the statute relating to the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The defendant was charged with an illegal sale of intoxicating liquor on the-day of July, 1923. The proof disclosed a sale to one Robbins, a deputy sheriff, on July 28, 1923. As a part of the proof adduced by the district attorney, one Donald Cox, also a deputy sheriff, testified, under objection by the defendant, as to purchasing liquor, on August 19th, at the place of business of the defendant, and at the same place where the alleged first sale of liquor was made, the purchase being from a bartender of the defendant, but in the presence of the defendant Mori. Before the introduction of this evidence in relation to a sale of liquor on August 19th, the attorneys for the defendant moved the court to restrict the district attorney from offering testimony of

[444]

the August sale of liquor. The trial judge refused to so do. Upon the offer being made of sueh testimony, objection was again made to its introduction, and after it had been given before the jury motion was made to strike it from the record. It was admitted, as part of the case in chief, and was allowed to remain in the record.

During the trial, and before giving the regular instructions, the trial court gave the jury a special instruction as to this testimony relating to the August sale, in part in the following language: “Testimony introduced this morning by Mr. Cox in which he is alleged to have made certain purchases, ... is admissible not for the purpose of proving another distinct offense upon that charge, but showing the character of the place, and purpose of the defendant; now that is the sole object for which that testimony was admitted, but not for the purpose of showing any distinct or particular crime at that particular time, merely for the purpose of showing character of the place and the purpose of the defendant.” Special objection was made to this instruction, and the same was assigned as error.

The evidence was clearly inadmissible, and it has been repeatedly so held, as may be seen by the following cases: