People v. Ross

Criminal Law—Appeal—Preview op Evidence—Credibility op Testimony—Province op Jury.—Where there is some evidence to sustain a verdict of conviction on every essential point, it is peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the prosecuting witness, and, unless the appellate court can plainly see that the verdict could only have been rendered through passion or prejudice, it will not disturb the verdict, although it is plausibly urged that the story told by the prosecuting witness is grossly improbable, and that the witness made contradictory statements both in and out of court, and was con* tradicted by other witnesses.

Id.—Rejection op Evidence—Error Cured by Subsequent Admission.— Any error committed in the sustaining of an objection to questions asked of a witness is cured, where the witness was subsequently recalled, and, without objection, testified fully in regard to the matter.

Id.—Reading Preliminary Examination to Prosecuting Witness.— Where the prosecuting witness has disappointed the prosecution in his testimony to a different state of facts from that testified to at the preliminary examination, it is not error for the court to permit the prosecution to read to him what he testified to at the preliminary examination, and the court may ask him whether his former statement was correct.

Id.—Robbery — Degraded Character op Prosecuting Witness — Instruction.—Upon the trial of a charge of robbery committed by the defendant upon the person of a female inmate of a house of prostitution, where there was no evidence impeaching the reputation of the prosecuting witness other than her degraded character, and evidence of her contradictory statements, it is not error prejudicial to the defendant to instruct the jury that there was no evidence directly assailing her character as a truthful person, hut that the common experience of mankind is, that there is rarely found united in the character of persons as degraded as she is any regard for truth; though it does not follow that because she is so degraded she is for that reason not to be believed, and her testimony entirely disregarded.

Id.—Dissolute Life—Admissions of Counsel.—It is not error for the court, in instructing the jury, to speak of the prosecuting witness as leading a dissolute life, where the evidence establishes that fact without conflict, and the court bases its statement upon admissions made by defendant’s counsel in his address to the jury.

Id.—Flight of Defendant—Question for Jury.—Where there is evidence adduced by the prosecution under the claim that the defendant fled from arrest, it is proper to instruct the jury that they may consider that fact, if they believe that he did flee from the officer; that the flight of a person suspected of crime is a circumstance to be weighed by the jury as tending in some degree to prove a consciousness of guilt, and is entitled to more or less weight, according to the circumstances of the particular case; and if proved, it is a circumstance for the jury to look at, and give it just such weight as they think, under all the circumstances of the case, it is entitled to.