People v. Wilson (1885) · DecisionDepot

People v. Wilson

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

California Supreme Court Jan 20, 1885 No. No. 2,026Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction and that the trial court properly refused a requested jury instruction regarding conspiracy because the evidence of the co-actor's acts was admissible based on her presence with the defendant.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that they could not consider the acts of a co-actor absent proof of a conspiracy.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The testimony is sufficient to establish a guilty knowledge on the part of defendant, and a participation in the actual theft, as well as in the fruits of the crime.”

“We cannot therefore disturb the verdict.”

“The acts of Lizzie Crowley admitted in evidence were committed while she was present with the defendant, and of themselves showed a connection between them.”

Synopsis

Criminai. Law—Verdict—Evidence.—A verdict of conviction in a criminal case will not be disturbed where there is evidence tending to sustain it.

Id.—Acts Done in Presence of Defendant—Conspiracy.—In a prosecution for larceny, evidence as to acts of another person, committed in the presence of the defendant, and showing a connection between them, are admissible,.although no conspiracy between them to steal has been shown.

The testimony is sufficient to establish a guilty knowledge on the part of defendant, and a participation in the actual theft, as well as in the fruits of the crime.

The Court. There was evidence in the case tending to show that the defendant was guilty. We cannot therefore disturb the verdict.

[371]The court below refused the following request of defendant to charge the jury:

“ You cannot take into consideration as against the defendant any act of Lizzie Crowley, unless the people have proven to your satisfaction that a conspiracy had been entered into between her and the defendant to commit the crime of larceny, or to take the money of the complaining witness.”

We find no error in this refusal. The acts of Lizzie Crowley admitted in evidence were committed while she was present with the defendant, and of themselves showed a connection between them. Apart from any conspiracy between them to steal (of which there was no evidence), the testimony was pertinent and relevant, and, therefore, admissible.

Judgment and order affirmed.

People v. Wilson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief