People v. Brown
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Homicide—Self-defense—Support of Verdict.—A verdict of guilty of murder will not be disturbed upon appeal, notwithstanding doubt thrown upon the testimony of the only eyewitness to the homicide, which, if believed by the jury, would support the verdict, and notwithstanding the corroboration of testimony of the defendant that he acted in self-defense. The truth or falsity of the testimony was matter for the jury to pass upon.
Id.—Evidence—Leading Questions—Discretion of Trial Court.—The trial court has discretion to allow leading questions to be addressed to a witness for the prosecution in his examination in chief, and its discretion will not be interfered with upon appeal, except in a clear case of abuse.
Id.—Harmless Ruling—Preliminary Questions—Dying Declarations. The allowance of preliminary questions asked of a witness with a view to the introduction of the dying declarations of the deceased is harmless, and. could not prejudice the defendant, where the dying declarations were not offered In evidence.
Id.—Declaration of .Deceased—Refusal to Strike Out.—The refusal of the court to strike out evidence of a declaration of the deceased, made a short time after the shooting, that he was “shot to kill,'’ cannot he prejudicial where it was conceded that defendant fired the fatal shot.
Id.—Motive—Declarations of Defendant—Intimacy With Wife of Deceased.—For the purpose of proving motive for the murder of the deceased, evidence of the declarations of the defendant tending to show intimate friendship or meretricious relations between him and the wife of the deceased is competent; and the fact that the declarations were of a vague and general character goes to their weight, and not to their admissibility. •
Id.—Evidence of Motive Material—Plea of Self-defense.—Evidence tending to show a motive for the killing is as material for the state, where the defendant claims that he acted in self-defense, as where the killing is denied.
Id.—Instructions as to Dying Declarations.—Abstract instructions as to dying declarations, where none were introduced in evidence, are not ground for reversal; and the refusal to give instructions requested relating to that subject is not erroneous.
Id.—Inapplicaelb Instructions.—Instructions having no application to the facts of the case are properly disallowed.
GAROUTTE, J.
Defendant has been convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He now attacks the evidence as not being* sufficient to support the ver
[593]
diet. The killing is conceded, and self-defense was the plea at the trial.
There was bad blood between these two men, and communicated threats of bodily harm had been made by both a short time prior to the homicide. The single eyewitness to the tragedy, a boy of twenty years of age, testified to facts which, if true, show the defendant to be guilty of murder. The defendant testified that the deceased, at the time the fatal shot was fired, was advancing upon him in a threatening manner with an uplifted board in his hand, and that the shooting was necessary to save his own life. The location of the deadly wound upon the body tends strongly to corroborate the testimony of defendant as to the particular circumstances under which the fatal shot was fired. Again, some doubt is thrown upon the truthfulness of the testimony of the eyewitness by reason of the fact that he made many statements prior to the trial to various parties in detailing the circumstances of the affray, which were in conflict with his testimony. But after considering all these matters this court can only say that the truth or falsity of his evidence was essentially a matter for the jury to pass upon. If his evidence were true, the defendant was guilty of murder, and evidently the jury believed his testimony. Under principles of law long settled in this state, we cannot disturb the verdict upon the ground that the evidence is too weak to support it.
Various objections are made to the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence, and we will notice the more important ones. Many of these objections are made to matters of evidence which in no possible way bore upon defendant’s guilt, and had no tendency whatever to prejudice him in the trial of his case.
It is insisted that the court abused its discretion in allowing leading questions to be asked the witness Bennett. Some of the, questions to which this objection is made are not leading, as, for example, “Did he have anything in his hand ?” In view of the fact that Bennett was the principal witness for the prosecution, the court might well have restricted the manner of the examination within narrower limits. At the same time, it is only in very exceptional eases that we will declare the trial
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)