People v. Sutton

California Supreme Court Aug 29, 1887 No. No. 20305Published

Before: McFarland, McKinstry, Paterson, Searls, Sharpstein, Temple, Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings regarding cross-examination and expert testimony, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting certain questions during the cross-examination of the defendant.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to a question regarding the status of a medical treatise.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing hypothetical questions during the cross-examination of an expert witness.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We fail to see that the answers to the questions objected to add anything material to what the defendant had previously voluntarily stated.”

“The witness was being cross-examined, and we think it was proper to ask him such questions as these for the purpose of testing his competency as an expert.”

“It is by no means clear that the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced the evidence claimed to be newly discovered at the trial”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and moved for a new trial upon the ground of errors of law, insufficiency of evidence, and newly discovered evidence. The defense at the trial was that of insanity. The newly discovered evidence set forth in the moving affidavits was, that certain relatives of the defendant had been afflicted with insanity. In connection with this defense, numerous witnesses who had known the defendant for many years testified in his behalf, and the affidavit of one of his counsel showed that during the progress of the trial, which lasted twelve days, he received information of the insanity of certain of the relatives of the defendant. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Sharpstein, J. — On the trial the defendant testified on his own behalf, and on his cross-examination stated: “ I did not see Martin’s [deceased’s] cattle on my place but once after I got my gun, and it was too much trouble to get the gun and shoot them. I never thought of shooting them at all. I saw some of Martin’s cattle on my said place two years ago, but I did not shoot any of them. The next time that I saw any of them was on September 15, 1886 [the date of the homicide]. There were two bands, fifteen in one and eight in another. When I first saw them I was about a quarter of a mile away, at work at my barn, and when I saw them I went into my house and got my gun to shoot the cattle, but I did not shoot them. I went up on to the hill and saw the band of cattle and Martin [deceased] standing on the top. The cattle were going east.”

The question that elicited this statement is omitted in the record, and it does not appear that any objection was interposed to it. But at the conclusion of the above statement the district attorney asked this question, “ Then the cattle were going towards Martin’s place?”

The defendant’s attorney objected, on the ground that it was not cross-examination. The objection was overruled, and the ruling excepted to. The question was not [245]answered, and the district attorney said, “ That was towards the coal mines?”

To which the defendant answered, “Yes, sir.”

The district attorney then said, “ The coal mine is not on your premises, is it?”

Defendant answered, “ No, sir.”

The district attorney then asked, “Was anybody driving them [the cattle] that way?” Defendant’s counsel objected, on the ground that it was not cross-examination. Objection overruled, and ruling excepted to.

Answer, “ No, sir. There was no one behind the cattle. Martin [deceased] was staying up on the hill to drive the cattle off, I suppose.”

On his examination in chief the defendant stated that he had been much annoyed by cattle trespassing on his premises, but he did not narrate the facts which he narrated on his cross-examination, without objection, and so far as the record shows, without being interrogated in relation thereto. If he had testified to the same facts on his examination in chief, the right to ask him the questions objected to-on cross-examination would be perfectly clear. And we think the questions objected to, and the answers to them, only tended to make more clear some of the statements previously made by the defendant, without objection, on his cross-examination.

People v. Sutton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief