People v. Eckert

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the necessity of corroborating accomplice testimony and by improperly instructing the jury that they were bound to believe an impeached witness if partially corroborated.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony requires corroboration connecting the defendant to the offense.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they were bound to believe an impeached witness if corroborated by other testimony.
Whether the substitution of a judge during the trial constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the corroborating evidence to the statements of the accomphce must connect the prisoner with the offense charged.”

“The credibility of any and all statements of a witness is a matter for the jury, and the Court should not interfere with them province in this respect.”

Synopsis

To convict a defendant of larceny upon the testimony of an accomplice, together with corroborating evidence, the corroborating evidence must connect the defendant with the offense charged. It is not sufficient that it corroborate the accomplice as to the fact that a larceny was committed.

McB., the accomplice, swore to the larceny by the defendant. The Court instructed the jury, “ that though the witness McB. was impeached, if his testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses unimpeached, they were bound to believe his testimonyHeld, that the instruction was wrong, as taking from the jury their right to judge of the credibility of all the statements of the witness.

It is irregular for one of the Justices composing the Court of Sessions, on a criminal trial, to retire before the termination of the trial, and another Justice, not present during the previous stages of it, to come in and participate in the proceedings. The members of the Court who act as such when the case is developed, should continue to act until the close. Whether such irregularity is sufficient to reverse a conviction otherwise regular, not here decided—but the practice is dangerous and disapproved of.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.

It is conceded by the Attorney General, and rightly, that the judgment must be reversed.

1. The defendant was indicted for grand larceny. The Court refused to give the following instruction: “ Although the jury may be satisfied that the offense of grand larceny has been committed, yet if they find that the witness, McBillingsly, was an accomplice to the offense, they cannot find the defendant guilty, unless that witness be corroborated by such other evidence as shaU tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. And such corroboration wiU be insufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances of such commission, but they must connect the defendant with the taking.” This refusal was erroneous. (Regina v. Dyke, 34 Eng. C. L. R. 381.) It is held, by this and other cases cited by the appellant’s counsel, that the corroborating evidence to the statements of the accomphce must connect the prisoner with the offense charged.

2. The Court also erred in giving the jury this instruction: “ That though the witness, McBillingsly, was impeached, if his testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses unimpeached, they were bound to believe his testimony.”

[113]The credibility of any and all statements of a witness is a matter for the jury, and the Court should not interfere with them province in this respect. It does not follow because a witness impeached, or not impeached, is supported, in some degree, or in some portions of his evidence, by other witnesses, that the jury are bound, as matter of law, to believe everything he says. Many things may characterize a cause or the testimony of a witness, which deny or impair credit to his assertions ; and the jury should be left free to pass upon all the circumstances and considerations in connection with his testimony, and assign to his statements their true weight and value as proof. A witness may be supported in a particular part of his testimony, and thus supported, the jury may believe that part, while, in other respects, they may think him altogether incredible.

3. An exception is taken to the fact that one of the Justices composing the Court of Sessions retired before the termination of the trial, and another Justice, not present during the previous stages of it, was called in at or towards the close of it, and participated in the proceeding. This certainly was very irregular. The members of the Court, who act as such when the case is developed, and who, therefore, are acquainted with the history and facts of it, should continue to act until the close. Otherwise it is apparent that there is not much difference between a Court composed of only two members and a Court composed of three, one of whom is ignorant of the matters before transpiring. Without affirming that this irregularity is, of itself, sufficient to reverse a conviction otherwise regular, we take occasion to express our disapproval of the practice, and suggest the danger to which it exposes the action of the Court.

People v. Eckert

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief