People v. Sullivan

California Supreme Court Nov 19, 1885 No. No. 20,091Published

Before: Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's murder conviction, ruling that the admission of challenged testimony was either proper or non-prejudicial and that the requested jury instruction on self-defense was legally incorrect and redundant.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the deceased's declarations.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the nature of the instrument used to inflict the wound.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's requested jury instruction on self-defense.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Even if it be conceded that the foregoing testimony was improperly admitted, there is nothing in it calculated to prejudice the defendant, and if error was committed by the court in admitting it, it was error without injury.”

“But we are of opinion that the witness White was a competent witness in respect to the matter on which he testified, and for that reason there was no error in admitting his testimony.”

“The foregoing instruction, as we understand it, does not contain a correct statement of the law; and if it did, the matter covered by the question of self-defense was embraced in other instructions given the jury by the court.”

Synopsis

Homicide—Admissibility of Declarations of Deceased.—In a prosecution for murder, the admission of declarations of deceased, made after receiving the injury, will not warrant a reversal if they are not calculated to prejudice the defendant, although they are not properly dying declarations, nor part of the res gestae.

Homicide—Expert Testimony as to the Nature of Wounds.—A witness who testifies that he has had experience with wounds, and is able to tell from seeing them what they were made with, though not a professional expert, may testify as to whether, in his opinion, a wound was inflicted with a dull or sharp instrument.

Criminal Trial—Refusal of Instructions Substantially Given.— It is not error to refuse to give an instruction if the same has already been given in other instructions.

MORRISON, C. J. The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and adjudged to suffer imprisonment therefor the term of twenty-five years. On this appeal he makes the following points:

(1) The court erred in admitting the declaration of deceased. (2) The court erred in admitting the testimony of H. J. White, who claimed to be an expert, as to whether the wound had been inflicted with a dull or sharp instrument. (3) The court erred in refusing to give an instruction asked by the defendant, upon the hypothesis that his testimony was true.

1. The following is the testimony objected to under the first alleged error:

[553]“Counsel for the people asked the following questions, upon which the court made the ruling that follows: Question. Did he (deceased) say anything about sending for a doctor while in that condition ? ■ Answer. Yes; I will tell you. Q. Just state what he said about sending for a doctor. Mr. Hinds, Counsel for Defendant: We object to it on the ground that it is incompetent and not admissible as a dying declaration, or as a part of the res gestae. Mr. Harris (for the People) : We want to show that the deceased asked them if they had sent for a doctor, and they said no, but they would; and he said it was no use—they couldn’t do him any good. We want to establish the foundation for introducing other declarations. Does the court admit the question? Court: Yes.

Mr. Hinds: We take an exception. Mr. Harris: State what he said about sending for a doctor, first. A. He asked if we sent for a doctor. He was told no, but there would be a doctor there as soon as possible. Says he, ‘I don’t think it is necessary; I don’t think a doctor will do me any good.’ Q. Did he say anything else in that conversation? Counsel for Defendant: We object to any declarations, on the ground that they are incompetent, not dying declarations, or a part of the res gestae. Court: Same ruling and same exception.

Q. Go ahead. A. He asked if he was hurt. He was told he was. Q. How he got hurt? A. He was not told how he got hurt. And then he says, ‘Have you sent for a doctor ?’ They said there would be a doctor there as soon as we could get him there. He says, ‘I don’t think it is necessary, because I don’t think he could do me any good’; and then asked if we had any morphine, and they said no. He died about an hour and a half—about two hours, I guess-—after he said these words. Q. He asked how he got hurt? A. Yes, sir.”

People v. Sullivan

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief