People v. Lang

California Supreme Court Oct 4, 1894 No. No. 21119Published

Before: Fleet, Garoutte, Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge violated the state constitution by charging the jury on matters of fact, specifically by improperly characterizing the defendant's testimony as false and by overstepping permissible limits in cautioning the jury regarding the defendant's credibility.

Issues

Whether the trial court's instructions to the jury constituted an improper charge on matters of fact in violation of the state constitution.
Whether the trial court's instructions regarding the defendant's credibility as a witness exceeded the proper limitations of judicial comment.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This was a plain invasion of the province of the jury and to the prejudice of defendant’s constitutional right, for which the judgment must be reversed.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The court erred in its instruction as to the distrust with which the defendant’s evidence was to be viewed. and as to the falsity of his evidence, as it in effect charged the jury with reference to matters of fact. (People v. Murray, 86 Cal. 31; Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1847; Const., art. 6, sec. 19.) The statement of the court in its instruction to the jury, that the defendant had a “powerful motive” to swear himself clear, is a charge upon a matter of fact. (People v. Ah Sing, 59 Cal. 400; People v. Titherington, 59 Cal. 598.)

The court did not err in stating the facts as to the defendant’s false testimony, as the court may state the testimony as long as he gives no opinion upon it. (People v. Wong Ah Foo, 69 Cal. 182; People v. Casey, 65 Cal. 260; People v. Righetti, 66 Cal. 184.) The statement that the defendant had a powerful motive to swear himself out of the charge was proper. (People v. Lane, 100 Cal. 379; People v. Baker, 100 Cal. 188; 38 Am. St. Rep. 276.)

Van Fleet, J. Defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and sentenced to the state prison for a term of five years. He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Several points are made for a reversal of the judgment, mostly based upon objections to the charge of the court.

1. The evidence of the prosecution tended to show that the burglary with which defendant was charged was committed by entering a dwelling-house at 419 .Baker street, in the city of San Francisco, on the eleventh day of June, 1893, between the hours of 11 A. M. and 5 p. m. The defendant’s main defense was an alibi. He testified that he did not commit the burglary; that he did not enter the house; was never near it in his life. He said: “I remember Sunday, the 11th of June last. I was at Mr. Carr’s place. He keeps a saloon at the end of the Sutter street road, right at the corner. [365]I went there between 8 and 9 o’clock Sunday morning, June 11th, and remained there until Monday about 12 o’clock. About 9 o’clock Sunday evening Mr. Carr asked me to come down town with him; he had a trotting horse. We went down town, and they were building a line at the time at Fifth and Mission, and the rails at this time were about this high (showing) above the pavement, and in going over it the buggy broke down. We had to leave the buggy and go to a livery-stable and hire another buggy and put the horse in it to go home with. That was on Sunday, June 11th, and that is the reason I remember the day.” Mr. Carr, called as a witness on behalf of defendant, testified in substance as follows: “I live at the corner of Sutter and Central avenue. I am acquainted with the defendant. He was at my house the day the buggy broke down. The stableman says it was the 13th of June, Tuesday, this year. I have no means of knowing or telling the day of the week except by what the stableman says. I am sure it was not on Sunday; it was a week day. The day the buggy broke down he was out there and wanted me to go on a bond for a friend of his. It was about 2 o’clock in the afternoon that we went down town in the buggy. The buggy broke ' down at Fourth street. It was not on Sunday the buggy broke down. He was out there two or three days before that. He was out there the Sunday before that. He was out there for two or three days before the day the buggy broke down. He was there Sunday, the 11th of June. I think he was there Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. I can’t say how long he stayed, it is so long ago; maybe an hour or two; he was there off and on. I was busy; Sunday is a busy day out there.” Afterwards the defendant admitted that he was mistaken as to the day the buggy broke down. This was all the testimony introduced on the question of alibi. In this state of the evidence the court, in its charge to the jury, said: “ Now, as to the matter of testimony, as I remarked to you before, the value of the testimony is entirely with you; you

People v. Lang

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief