People v. Chee Kee (1882) · DecisionDepot

People v. Chee Kee

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

California Supreme Court Sep 22, 1882 No. No. 10,768Published

Before: McKee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the admission of an almanac to prove the time of sunrise was not error because the fact is subject to judicial notice, and further held that a general objection to evidence is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting an almanac to prove the time of sunrise.
Whether a general objection to the admission of evidence is sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact, for the proof of which the Almanac was offered, was one of those facts of which a Court may take judicial notice; formal proof of it was therefore unnecessary.”

“Besides, a general objection to the admission of evidence is insufficient.”

Synopsis

Judicial Notice—Immaterial Error.—On the trial of an infomation-for burglary the District Attorney was permitted to read in evidence Doctor Ayres’ American Almanac for 1882, to prove the time when the sun rose on the morning of the alleged offense.

Held: The fact for the proof of which the almanac was offered was one-of those facts of which a Court may take judicial notice; formal proof of it was therefore unnecessary.

Id.—Objection to Evidence.—A party objecting to evidenee.must specify the ground of his objection; if he does not there is no error in overruling it, and an exception taken to the ruling is not revisable on appeal.

McKee, J.: At the trial of the defendant upon an information ag’ainst him for the crime of burglary, charged to have been- committed in the City and County of San Francisco on March 20,1882, the District Attorney offered in evidence “Dr. Ayers American Almanac for 1882,” to prove the time when the sun rose on the morning of that day. To the offer the defendant objected generally, without stating any ground of objection; and upon the overruling of the objection, he excepted.

The fact, for the proof of which the Almanac was offered, was one of those facts of which a Court may take judicial notice; formal proof of it was therefore unnecessary. It would-have been sufficient to have called it to the knowledge of the Judge at the trial; and if his memory was at fault, or his information not sufficiently full and precise to induce him to act upon it, he had the right to resort to an almanac, or any other book of reference for the purpose of satisfying himself about it (Sub. 8, § 1875, C. C. P.); and such knowledge would have been evidence. (§ 1827, id.; Page v. Faucet, Cro. Eliz. 227.)

[405]Besides, a general objection to the admission of evidence is insufficient. (People v. Apple, 7 Cal. 289; People v. Glenn, 10 id. 33.) A party objecting to evidence must specify the ground of his objection (People v. Manning, 48 id. 335); if he does not, there is no error in overruling his objection; and an exception taken to the ruling is not revisable on appeal (Winans v. Hassey, 48 id. 635.)

Judgment and order affirmed.

Morrison, O. J., and Thornton, Myrick, McKjnstry, Boss, and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.

People v. Chee Kee

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief