People v. Winters (1874) · DecisionDepot

People v. Winters

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 10,117Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a witness's response to the Clerk's inquiry regarding his name constitutes sufficient evidence of his identity, even if provided before the witness is formally sworn to testify in the case.

Issues

Whether a witness's response to the Clerk's question regarding his name constitutes proof of his identity.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defendant has appealed, and claims that it was not proved that the name of the witness was Henry Plageman, because his reply to the question put by the Clerk constituted no portion of his testimony.”

“Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.”

Synopsis

Testimony of a Witness.—When a witness is called and sworn, an. answer which he makes to a question put by the Clerk of the Court, demanding his name, is a part of his testimony.

By the Court, McKinstry, J.: Indictment charging defendant with entering the house of one Henry Plageman with intent to commit larceny therein. The first witness called by the prosecution, after having been duly sworn, was asked by the Clerk, “what is your name?” To which question he replied, “Henry Plageman,” and then proceeded to testify further in the case. The defendant has appealed, and claims that it was not proved that the name of the witness was Henry Plageman, because his reply to the question put by the Clerk constituted no portion of his testimony.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

Neither Mr. Justice Crockett nor Mr. Justice Rhodes: expressed an opinion.

People v. Winters

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief