People v. Anderson
Synopsis
Criminal Daw—Homicide—Cross-examination.—Upon cross-examination of witnesses for the prosecution, who have given damaging evidence against a defendant accused of murder, offers of evidence to show that one of the witnesses had been told of remarks by the accused about his family, and that another witness had said that she would hang the defendant if her evidence would do so, are competent for the obvious purpose of showing bias and ill-feeling on the part of the witnesses against the defendant, and it is error to exclude the offered evidence. Id.—Instructions—Reasonable Doubt— Burden of Proof.—Where the court has instructed the jury very fully upon the question of reasonable doubt it is not error to give an instruction as to the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation in the language of section 1105 of the Penal Code.
Id.—Construction of Charge.—Instructions to the jury must be read as a whole, and, if the entire charge fairly presents the law of the case, the judgment will not be reversed for minor and unimportant defects, or because the court refuses to repeat itself.
Id.—Instructions as to Defendant’s Testimony.—An instruction as to the defendant’s testimony which is not a departure from instructions that have been allowed to pass by this court does not furnish sufficient ground for reversal; but attention is called to the criticism of similar instructions in recent cases decided by this court.
The Court. The defendant was charged with the crime of murder, and found guilty of manslaughter, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court. He was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison for the term of six and a half years, and has appealed from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.
[33]It was clearly proved at the trial that the defendant committed the homicide charged, and the only defense was that under the circumstances shown it was justifiable or excusable.
It is claimed that the court committed several errors, prejudicial to the defendant, in its rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence, and in the giving, modifying, and refusing instructions to the jury.
1. M. T. Steinbrum and Mrs. Steinbrum were witnesses for the prosecution, and gave damaging evidence against the defendant. On cross-examination the former was asked: “Didn’t Mr. Donohue tell you . . . . in the presence of Mr. Fisher, that Anderson had made remarks about your family and others” ?
He answered: “ I don’t recollect whether he did or not.” Counsel for defendant then said: “Well, I will make the offer to prove by the witness Fisher and the witness Morgan that these conversations did occur with Mr. Steinbrum, as I have indicated in the questions I asked him.”
On objection of the district attorney the offered evidence was excluded.
On cross-examination Mrs. Steinbrum was asked about what had occurred at a time and place named, and then: “Do you remember saying something about hanging Anderson if your evidence would be sufficient”? The witness denied saying any thing of the kind, and counsel afterwards offered to prove that she had said “ she would hang the defendant if her evidence would do so.” This offered evidence was also excluded on objection of the district attorney.
It is claimed that these rulings were erroneous, and, in our opinion, the claim must be sustained. The obvious purpose of the offers was to show bias and ill-feeling on the part of the witnesses' against the defendant, and this it was competent to do. (People v. Wasson, 65 Cal. 538; People v. Lee Ah Chuck, 66 Cal. 662; Schultz v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242, and cases there cited.)
2. The court instructed the jury at great length, the
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)