People v. Dye
Before: Hayne
Synopsis
Impeachment of Wetness. —A witness cannot be impeached by contradicting him upon collateral matters.
Ibbelevant Evidence. — Irrelevant evidence on one side does not justify irrelevant evidence on the other.
Id. — Upon the trial of a party accused of murder, somewhat remotely growing out of the improper relations of the prisoner’s wife with another man, which fact appeared in the prisoner’s evidence, and in the cross-examination, it is error to allow the prosecution in rebuttal to prove that some time after the killing the prisoner had sent his wife to demand money from the man with whom she had had the improper relations.
Pboof of Agency t-Deolabation of Agent.—The mere declaration of a party is not proof that he is the agent of another.
Opinion — Hayne
Hayne, C. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, for the killing of one Herman Haines, and was sentenced to sixteen years in the state prison.
The shooting occurred in the store of one Cohen, in the town of Santa Paula. The evidence tends to show that the two men met in the store, and that Haines bid the defendant “Good morning” as he passed him, whereupon the defendant exclaimed: “You dirty scoundrel, how dare you speak to me?” and taking him by the throat, slapped his face several times. Cohen, the storekeeper, then threw his arms around the defendant and held him, doubtless with a view to put an end to the struggle. Haines then ran to the corner of the store, [109]where he had left his rifle on entering the place, and took it up. In the mean time the defendant had got loose from Cohen, and dodging behind the counter, approached Haines in a stooping posture. The evidence tends to show that Haines had got hold of his rifle, and was pointing or endeavoring to point it at the defendant as the latter approached him. The defendant, before reaching Haines, but when quite close to him, fired two shots with his revolver, and on reaching him, took the rifle from him, or knocked it out of his grasp. Haines then ran into the street. The defendant followed and fired a shot as Haines was running away. The defendant’s version of the affair differs somewhat from the foregoing. He says that Haines jostled him in passing, and that he did not fire when Haines ran away.
Three wounds were found upon Haines,—one in tne shoulder, one in the abdomen, and one in the thigh. According to a physician, either of the two former were sufficient to cause death, but the wound in the thigh was not dangerous. There is some' evidence to the effect that the wound in the shoulder was from the first shot, but there is nothing to show the order of the other wounds. Haines died in three or four days after being shot.
The defense was, that the shooting was necessary for the defendant’s protection. He gave evidence tending to show that Haines had threatened to kill him, and that he had been informed of such threats, and introduced evidence tending to show the following facts:—
Haines and his son, a boy about sixteen years old, were in defendant’s employ upon a ranch which he was managing. One day, a short while before the shooting, he intercepted a letter from Haines to his (defendant’s) wife. This letter was as follows: “Mrs. Dye: Meet me at the barn to-night, or I will tell Joe about that medicine. Answer. H. Haines.” Underneath this, on the same paper, was written: “I return your insult, and I say to
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)