People v. Cleveland
Before: Crockett
Synopsis
Cobboboeation on Testimony on an Accomplice.—On a trial for stealing a horse, if the prosecution prove the larceny by an accomplice, further proof that the next morning after the horse was stolen, the prisoner received him from the person who took the horse from the owner, and immediately removed him to another place for pasturage, and gave an assumed name to the person with whom he left the horse for pasturage, is a sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice to sustain a conviction.
Idem.—Admissions made by a prisoner, which tend strongly to connect him with the larceny for which he is on trial, are a sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice introduced by the prosecution, to sustain a conviction.
Continuance.—An application for a continuance by a defendant in a criminal case, is properly denied, if affidavits on behalf of the people are introduced which show that the absent witness is a fugitive from justice, and cannot probably be produced at the next term of the Court, and particularly if the deposition of the absent witness was taken before the examining Court, and the prosecution offers to allow it to be introduced in evidence on the trial.
Instructions to the Jury.—Although some of the instructions of the Court to the jury may not state the law with precise accuracy, yet if, taken as a whole, they are substantially correct, and could not have misled the jury to thé prejudice of the defendant, the judgment will not be disturbed.
By the Court, Crockett, J.: 1. There was evidence, exclusive of that of the accomplice, tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the larceny. The fact that on the morning after the larceny, the stolen horse was found in his possession, under the circumstances admitted by the defendant on his examination as a witness, and the further fact that he immediately removed the horse to another place for pasturage, and gave an assumed name, tended to show his complicity in the theft. Moreover, his admissions to the jailer and the District Attorney, tended strongly to implicate him as a party to the larceny.
2. The defendant’s motion for a continuance was properly denied. The affidavits used on the motion satisfactorily established that the absent witness was a fugitive from justice, and could not probably be produced at the next term. His deposition had been taken before the examining Court, and the defendant had the benefit of it, or might have used it if he had elected to do so. Besides, the facts expected to be proved by him were not only sworn to by two other witnesses, but were in themselves of no significance.
3. While some of the instructions are perhaps subject to criticism, and may not state the law with precise accuracy, yet, taken as a whole, they were substantially correct, and could not have misled the jury to the prejudice of the defendant.
Order and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.
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)