People v. Crandall
Before: Dyke, Temple
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Homicide—Evidence—Marked Photographs—Discretion.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of murder, the use in evidence of photographs of the scene of the homicide, taken by the prosecuting officers, with certain places marked thereon as pointed out by witnesses, is within the discretion of the court.
Id—Photographs as Diagrams—Hearsay—Proof of Correctness.—Like any other diagrams, the value of the photographs must be determined by the jury from all the evidence; and they are not inadmissible hearsay merely because the places marked were pointed out by witnesses, if they testify that they were correctly pointed out, and the correctness of the marking is proved.
Id.—Photographs Taken by Prosecution—Unseemly Testimony.— Although it may not be erroneous to permit the use as diagram^ of photographs taken by the prosecuting officers, yet, their office being quasi judicial, it would be better if the proof were furnished by other witnesses. It is unseemly that the same person should be both advocate and witness.
Id.—Impkopeb Impeachment—Cboss-Examination as to Immobal Conduct.—Questions asked upon cross-examination of the wife of the defendant, for the avowed purpose of impeachment, as to whether she did not live by prostitution, and as to particular times and places, and particular men, and special modes of solicitation for immoral purposes, are highly improper; and the asking of them is prejudicial error as insinuating damaging charges against the witness tending to disgrace and degrade ■her.
Id.—Collatebal Inquiby—Answebs Conclusive—Aegument of Distbict Attobney.—The inquiry as to the grossly immoral conduct of the defendant’s wife, being wholly collateral to the issues, and the insinuated charges being such that they could not be rebutted otherwise than by the denial of the witness, her denials in answer to the improper questions are conclusive, and the prosecution could not contradict them; nor could the district attorney properly insinuate in argument to the jury that her answers to the questions were not true.
Opinion — Dyke
VAK DYKE, J. The defendant was tried upon a charge of murder and convicted of manslaughter. He appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.
The homicide was committed at Ballona, on a lagoon near the beach, between Santa Monica and Redondo, in the county of Los Angeles. The only defense urged was that the life of the deceased was taken by the defendant in necessary self-defense.
Some two weeks prior to the homicide defendant rented from Hoagland a cabin having but one room, not far from the ocean beach and near the cottage occupied by Hoagland and his partner, who were fishermen. Soon after William White and Bowman—the deceased—joined Crandall at his request, and occupied the cabin with him. On the Sunday preceding the homicide they were joined by Mrs. Crandall, Mrs. Bowman, wife of deceased, and Maud Kelson, the mistress o£ White. The parties spent Sunday night at the cabin drinking. During the night [131]a quarrel arose between Maud Nelson and Mrs. Crandall, into which Bowman and defendant were drawn. According to the testimony of the defendant and his wife, Maud Nelson asserted that defendant had made improper proposals to Mrs. Bowman, and, although Mrs. Bowman promptly denied the accusation, Bowman made some direful threats against defendant, and, as White sided with Bowman, defendant, who was an invalid, became alarmed and left the cabin at about 2 o’clock in the morning; he and his wife went to Hoagland’s cottage, where they spent the balance of the night. There they were told of other threats made by Bowman against the defendant. In the morning they rode with Hoagland on his fish wagon to Los Angeles, being afraid, as they testified, to remain at the beach. Nevertheless, defendant arranged to return and stop at the cottage with Hoagland, and took along some implements for baking clams, and also took with him a revolver. And on the following Tuesday he procured a buggy from a livery stable and returned to the beach with one Bremmerman. Then, having put up his horse, he and Bremmerman proceeded to the cabin to get some goods which Crandall had left. While collecting his things he inquired of White and Maud Nelson for Bowman, and was told where he was. Bowman was at the time lying down upon the sand, some three or four hundred yards distant, and Crandall and Bremmerman then proceeded toward him. Bowman, having seen them coming, got up and met them. When they met, Crandall asked Bowman for a pair of suspenders which he had loaned him. Bowman took them off and handed them to Crandall, and thanked him for their use. All three then turned and walked together toward the cabin. Bowman soon began to complain that Crandall had refused to be security for him for a small bill at Los Angeles, and charged him also with having insulted his wife. When Crandall denied this last charge Bowman suddenly turned upon him, put both hands upon his shoulders, and “glowering down at him,” said: “You lie, you God damned son of a bitch. I will fix you.” Crandall then asked Bowman to let him alone, and jerked away from his grasp, drew his pistol and shot him. Bremmerman was a witness for the prosecution and was the only person, other than the parties, who saw the affray, although there were several within hearing.
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)