People v. Wong Ah Foo

California Supreme Court Mar 26, 1886 No. No. 20142Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting dying declarations, denying a new trial based on cumulative evidence, or in its jury instructions regarding circumstantial evidence, alibi testimony, and witness credibility.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly admitted the victim's declarations as evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Whether the trial court's jury instructions regarding alibi evidence and witness credibility constituted improper commentary on the weight of evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The declarations of the man slain were properly admitted in evidence, in the exercise by the court of a sound discretion.”

“Upon a close examination of the whole charge, including the part quoted, and giving to it an unstrained interpretation, we do not perceive that the court charged the jury upon the weight of evidence.”

“There being no error in the record, the judgment and order should be affirmed.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Murder.—Statement by Deceased—Admissibility of — Evidence. —In a prosecution formurder, a statement by the deceased that the defendant shot him, if made almost eo instanti the firing of the fatal shot, and before the defendant had proceeded farther than across the street from the place of the homicide, is admissible in evidence, although such statement was not made in the immediate presence of the defendant.

Id.—New Trial—Newly Discovered Evidence.—Anew trial will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, if the evidence is merely cumulative, and is contradicted by the affidavits of the adverse party.

Id. —Instruction—Reasonable Doubt—Error. —The court charged the jury that they should acquit, if they had from the evidence a reasonable doubt of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Held, that the instruction was more favorable to the defendant than he was entitled to, and was not a prejudicial error.

Id. —Circumstantial Evidence—Weight of. — A statement by the court in its instructions that there was evidence in the case of a circumstantial nature, is not error, if the charge as a whole did not convey to the jury any opinion of the court as to the weight of such evidence.

Id. —Instruction that Act is Murder. —Where there is no conflict in the evidence as to the homicide being murder, the court may so instruct the j™-y-

Id. — Relationship of Witness—Evidence of Admissible. — In a criminal case, where a son of the defendant testifies in his behalf, evidence of flheir relationship is admissible, and the court may instruct the jury that they may consult their general knowledge and experience in life as to whether or not a son would he apt to favor his father in giving his testimony.

Id.—Alibi—-Character of Evidence to Prove.—Certain observations made by the court in the instructions to the jury as to the character of the evidence that might he used to prove an aUbi examined, and held not erroneous.

Foote, C. The defendant was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree; from the judgment of conviction, and the order denying his motion for a new trial, he prosecutes this appeal.

The declarations of the man slain were properly admitted in evidence, in the exercise by the court of a sound discretion. They had been made only a very few moments preceding his death, and appear to have been uttered, if not in the immediate presence of the accused, yet before the latter had proceeded more than across Clay Street, from the place where the deceased fell wounded, following almost eo instanti the firing of the fatal shot, thus being contemporaneous with and illustrative of the [182]character of the main facts under consideration. (1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 108; Commonwealth v. McPike, 3 Cush. 181; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Proc., sec. 10986, note 4, and cases cited.)

It was not error for the court to refuse a new trial, because of the offer made by the defendant by affidavits of himself and others, of alleged newly discovered evidence. That evidence was in the main cumulative, and besides, those affidavits were contradicted, in a material respect, by that of I. M. Floyd, offered by the people.

The court refused two instructions asked by the defendant, but they were afterwards included in the charge given on the part of that tribunal.

There is no error of which the defendant can be heard to complain, from the fact that the court charged the jury they should acquit if they had from the evidence a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. It was really more favorable to him than he had a legal right to expect.

We see no error in the court informing the jury that . there was some evidence in the case of a circumstantial nature. Taking the whole charge, it did not convey to them any opinion of the court as to the weight of it as evidence.

Under the facts of this case as given in evidence, we can perceive no error in the judge stating to the jury, in the charge, that he understood from the argument and testimony that the offense committed was probably murder, or nothing. There was no conflict in the evidence as to the act committed being murder, the conflict was as to who was the actual perpetrator of it.

As part of its charge, which is most strenuously assailed by the defendant, as being calculated to mislead the jury, and to inform them that evidence of an alibi is to be distrusted, in that it is more easily fabricated, and holds out greater temptation therefor than other kinds of evidence, this language was employed: “How,

People v. Wong Ah Foo

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief