People v. Lane

California Supreme Court Mar 3, 1894 No. No. 21050Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's murder conviction, ruling that the physician-patient privilege does not apply in criminal cases, evidence of other crimes is admissible to rebut a defense of insanity, and procedural irregularities in the commitment process did not invalidate the second information.

Issues

Whether the physician-patient privilege applies in criminal cases.
Whether evidence of other crimes is admissible to rebut a defense of insanity.
Whether the court erred in its instructions regarding the presumption of continuing insanity.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule as to privileged communications between patient and physician does not apply in criminal cases.”

“In the view which we take of the case, however, the instruction, if conceded to be erroneous in the abstract, could not possibly have prejudiced the defendant.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Practice—Dismissal of Information—Failure of Magistrate to Indorse Commitment—Re-examination Not Required.—Where an information was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate, and it appeared that the only irregularity in the proceedings before the magistrate consisted in his failure to make a proper indorsement of the commitment upon the complaint at the conclusion of the examination, it was proper for the trial court to order that the papers be sent back to the magistrate for proper indorsement without another preliminary examination, and that upon return of the same the district attorney should file another information.

Id.—Homicide—Evidence—Condition of Ground—Finding of Body.— Upon the trial of a defendant charged with murder, where it appears that the affray occurred in the dark; that many shots were fired; that two persons were killed and one wounded, and three pistols were introduced in evidence of different calibers, each containing a number of empty and loaded cartridges, 'it was not error for the court to allow the introduction of testimony as to the condition of the ground, and the finding of the body of one of the persons killed, so that the jury should be put in possession of all the facts and circumstances in order that it might determine whether the defendant killed the person with whose murder he was charged.

Id.—Privileged Communications—Physician and Patient.—The rule as to privileged communications between patient and physician does not apply in criminal cases. The privilege was not conferred to shield a person charged with the murder of another, or to he used as a weapon against one charged with crime.

Id.—Opinion Evidence—Mental Condition of Defendant—Qualification of Witness—Discretion.—The action of the trial court in permitting witnesses to give their opinion as to the mental condition of a defendant on trial on a criminal charge cannot he said to have been erroneous where it was shown that the witnesses were acquainted with the defendant, and had more or less opportunity for acquiring knowl-, edge on which to base an opinion. In such matters a very large discretion must be conceded to the trial'court.

Id.—Conspiracy—Circumstantial Evidence.—A conspiracy, like any other fact, may he proven by circumstantial evidence.

Id.—Rebuttal of Insanity—Proof of Incest.—Proof that a defendant, upon trial for murder, had committed the crime of incest with his daughter is admissible in rebuttal, where the claim of the defense is that the defendant had become insane through fear that the deceased was trying to debauch defendant’s daughter.

Id.—Commission of Another Offense.—Evidence tending to show a material fact or motive, although it also tends to prove the commission of another offense by the defendant, is relevant and admissible in a criminal action.

Paterson, J.— An information was filed in the court below charging the defendant with the crime of murder, but the same was dismissed by the court on motion of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate. It appears that the only irregularity in the proceedings before the justice of the peace consisted in the failure of the latter to make a proper indorsement of the commitment upon the complaint at the conclusion of the examination. The court, therefore, ordered that the papers be sent back to the justice of the peace for proper indorsement, and that upon return of the same to the superior court, the district attorney should file another information. This was done by the district attorney, and we think the court properly denied the motion to set aside the second information. It was unnecessary to go into another examination upon the same charge. (People v. Thompson, 84 Cal. 598; Pen. Code, sec. 997; People v. Kilvington, No. 21033, this day filed.)

The court did not err in permitting the witness, Williams, to give testimony relating to Flowers, who was killed at the same time and in the same affray which resulted in the killing of Foulk. The testimony of this witness, as well as that of Hawkins and Barricklo, was necessary in order that the jury might understand the [516]transaction. The affray occurred in the dark; many shots were fired; two persons were killed and one wounded. Three pistols were introduced in evidence of different calibers; each contained a number of empty and a number of loaded cartridges. To determine whether or not the defendant killed Foulk it was necessary that the jury should be put in possession of all the facts • and circumstances; and to do this, the condition of the ground and the finding of the body of Flowers were necessarily referred to.

l It is urged that the court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine Dr. Danfortli as to the nature of the complaint for which he treated the defendant. It is claimed that the testimony was “ irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, being a privileged communication between patient and physician.” There is no merit in the contention. The rule as to privileged communications between patient and physician does not apply in criminal cases. The chapter on Witnesses in the Civil Procedure limits the rule to civil actions (sec. 1881, subd. 4), and the Penal Code, which expressly preserves the rule as to husband and wife in the chapter determining “ who may be witnesses in criminal actions,” makes no mention of physician and patient. (Freel v. Market St. Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 40.) At common law the rule as to physicians was not observed in either civil or criminal cases. (3 Rice on Evidence, sec. 209.) The statutory privilege was not conferred to shield a person charged with the murder of another (People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 448), and it certainly was not intended to be used as a weapon against one charged with crime.

People v. Lane

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief