People v. Clary

Searls, C. The-defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery, averred to have been perpetrated at the city and county of San Francisco, by forcibly, violently, etc., taking from one Maria Schaefer the sum of five hundred dollars.

At the trial the prosecuting witness, Maria Schaefer, had detailed the particulars of having drawn money from the Hibernia Bank in the presence of defendant, of her placing it in a satchel, and she related how she went to Silver Street by the street-cars; how defendant followed [60]and knocked her down; how she held to the satchel, and he struck lier again and got the satchel containing the money from her.

Thereupon the court, against the objection of defendant, permitted the prosecution to put the following question:—

“ Q.—It was taken from you against your will, was it?

“ Yes, sir.”

And the further question, as follows: —

“ Q,. — And by means of this force ?

“A.—He took it with force.”

The examination of a witness in the trial of a cause is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the court, and in the exercise of that discretion leading questions may be permitted or denied.

It is apparent from the testimony of the witness that she was a foreigner who did not speak the English language with fluency. Under such circumstances, and in view of the fact that the witness had in substance stated the facts embodied in the questions put by the prosecution, there was no abuse of discretion by the court in permitting the questions. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 2044-2046; Moran v. Abbey, 63 Cal. 56; Green v. Gould, 3 Allen, 466; Hopkinson v. Steel, 12 Vt. 582; Parsons v. Huff, 38 Me. 187.)

It is next contended that the court erred in its charge to the jury, in defining the ■ crime of larceny and in noting the features which' distinguish that crime from robbery.

The jury was first instructed as to what constitutes robbery; in which the essentials requisite to that offense, including the force or fear necessary, were set out at length.

The court then defined grand larceny and petit larceny substantially in the language of the Penal Code.