People v. Goodwin

GRAY,C.

—The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. In a case of this kind, it is worse than useless for counsel to address long arguments to this court on mere questions of fact. The prosecutrix testified to every fact necessary to establish defendant’s guilt as charged. The jurors were the sole judges of her credibility. They believed her, and found, the defendant guilty. Therefore he must be treated as guilty, and suffer the penalty of his crime, unless it is shown that for some reason he did not have a fair trial.

(People

v. Hough, 120 Cal. 538.

1

)

2. The prosecution offered in evidence a number of letters purporting to be written by defendant to the complaining witness prior to the alleged seduction. Previous to the introduc

[370]

tion of these letters, the prosecutrix testified as to each of them that she recognized it as in the handwriting of defendant, “ all of it, and signed by him,” and that she received it through the mail. Counsel for defendant asked to be permitted to examine the witness as to her knowledge of the defendant’s handwriting, before the letters were admitted. The court replied, “You will have an ample opportunity to examine the witness thoroughly upon your cross-examination,” to which counsel excepted. Counsel then objected-to the introduction of the letter, “ upon the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and upon the further ground that there is no proper evidence that the letter was written by the defendant. There is no proof of his handwriting, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure in such cases.” The court overruled this and all other objections to the letters, to which ruling the defendant excepted. After the letters had all been received and read in evidence, it appeared, on the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, that while she had never seen the defendant write, yet he had in a conversation with her acknowledged writing to her one of the letters introduced in evidence. The brother of the prosecutrix was also subsequently called as a witness, and testified that he had seen defendant write, and on the said letters being shown to him, he testified that they were each and all in the handwriting of defendant. It therefore - appears that if there was any error in any ruling of the court in connection with the admission of the letters, such error was cured by this subsequent competent evidence, showing without conflict that the letters were in the handwriting of defendant. In