People v. Linares

Criminal Law—Requested Instruction—Presumption of Innocence •—Modification.—Where the court gave to the jury the greater part of an instruction requested by the defendant, “that the law presumes the defendant innocent, and such presumption attends the defendant throughout the entire ease, and you should consider it together with the other evidence in arriving at your verdict, and such presumption may be sufficient to acquit the defendant, and is sufficient, unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that the defendant is guilty as charged in the information,” the omission therefrom of the words “such presumption is to be considered by you as matter of evidence in favor of the defendant” cannot have prejudiced the defendant, and is not ground of reversal.

Id.—Bobbery—Evidence—Bes Geste.—Upon a trial for robbery evidence is admissible to show a series of events occurring shortly prior to the robbery, and leading continuously up to it, as a part of the same transaction; and the fact that after the defendant had discovered in a saloon that the prosecuting witness had a purse containing gold coin, and had commented on it, an assault and battery was made by defendant upon him in the saloon prior to the time of the final assault, battery, and robbery, which took place in the wagon of the prosecuting witness, does not render the evidence of all the facts inadmissible.

Id.—Proof of Loss of Money.—Where the prosecuting witness testified that after he had started with his horse and wagon away from the saloon he was pursued by defendant on horseback with a pistol, and compelled to return, and that he was then assaulted in the wagon with a stone and robbed, and that he lay a long time helpless in the wagon, until he was driven home by another person, it was proper for the prosecution to prove that he afterwards had no money, and the testimony of the driver is admissible to show that on the way the prosecuting witness turned his pockets inside out and showed the driver that he had no money therein. The possibility that the prosecuting witness may have himself removed his money goes only to the weight of the evidence, and not to its relevancy.

Id.—Control of Cross-Examination—Power of Court—Discretion.— A court has power for the orderly conduct of a trial to control the cross-examination of witnesses within reasonable limits; and where the defendant had cross-examined a witness for the prosecution at great length, and the court merely prevented frequent repetitions of the same questions, and defendant was not prevented from asking new questions, there was no abuse of discretion.