People v. Evans

California Supreme Court Aug 29, 1895 No. Crim. No. 1Published

Before: Beatty

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's murder conviction, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence despite conflicting testimony and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were either correct or non-prejudicial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a murder conviction given the conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's identity and alibi.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior threats and expertise with a rifle.
Whether the court's exclusion of the jury during the hearing on the admissibility of a confession constituted reversible error.
Whether the court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce rebuttal evidence to contradict the defendant's alibi witnesses.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under these circumstances, we cannot assume to overrule the verdict of the jurors, who saw and heard the witnesses, upon the ground that the proofs do not seem to be entirely satisfactory to us.”

“The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.”

Synopsis

Homicide—Appeal.—Where, in a Murder Case, the Only Dispute is as to the identity of the murderer, and there is a sharp conflict in the evidence, the supreme court will not disturb the verdict because not entirely satisfactory.

Homicide—Appeal.—A Verdict of Guilty will not be Set Aside because of the erroneous admission of evidence which is not injurious to defendant.

Homicide—Evidence of Threats.—On Trial for the Murder of T., it was not error to admit evidence that, some time before the murder, defendant, referring to the killing of a certain girl, said that the man who killed her did not intend to kill her: that he was very sorry for killing the girl; that he meant to kill T., and he would have him yet before he stopped.

Homicide—Evidence of Proficiency in Use of Firearms.— Where it appears deceased was shot, and there is evidence that defendant, when arrested, said he could not shoot a rifle, or had not shot a gun for a long time, it is proper to admit evidence that he is an expert with the rifle.

Criminal Law—Confession.—The People and Defendant Consented that the preliminary evidence as- to the admissibility of an alleged written confession by defendant and a fellow-prisoner, and the argument on defendant’s objections, should be heard in the absence of the jury. Held, that the action of the court in proceeding in accordance with such arrangement would not be reviewed, in the absence of objection and exception in the trial court.

Criminal Law.—Where the Defense is Alibi, It is not Error to allow the people, in rebuttal, to contradict the witnesses who testified to the alibi, by disproving the collateral facts testified to by them on their direct examination as a means of fixing the time when they saw defendant at the place distant from the scene of the crime.

Criminal Law—Alibi.—It is not Error to Permit the People to rebut the circumstances called out on cross-examination of the witnesses to an alibi, though no foundation is laid for contradiction, where no objection is made on such ground.

BEATTY, C. J. The defendant was convicted of murder, and appeals from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial.

It was clearly proved that on June 15, 1893, Mishael Tovey, a messenger for Wells, Fargo & Co., while seated by the side of the driver on a stage going from lone to Jackson, in Amador county, was shot and killed by a man who stood behind and was partly concealed by a buckeye tree growing within ten or twelve feet of the roadside. The .circumstances leave no doubt that the killing was premeditated, and that the crime was murder of the first degree, the only dispute being as to the identity of the slayer. He was distinctly seen, at a dis[127]tance of not more than twenty feet, by the driver of the stage, and by a passenger who sat behind the driver on top of the stage; but his face was blackened with charcoal, and the lower part of it concealed by the foliage of the tree behind which he stood, and, while the stage driver testified positively that the defendant was the man,-the passenger was equally positive that he was not. - To corroborate the driver, the prosecution introduced evidence of remarks in the nature of threats by the defendant against the deceased, made prior to the killing • evidence that the defendant, after the killing, spoke of it with apparent pleasure; evidence of similarity of the clothes worn by the defendant and the man who fired the fatal shot; evidence of similarity of walk (a sort of limp) and of general appearance; and evidence of statements and admissions by the defendant implying his guilt, besides other circumstances having some slight tendency, perhaps, to connect him with the killing. ,On the part of the defense, evidence was introduced to explain or contradict most of the evidence for the people, and, in addition, there was very strong and positive testimony of a number of witnesses to the effect that at the time of the killing the defendant was at a farm many miles distant from the scene. As to the alleged statements and admissions of the defendant, they rested upon the uncorroborated testimony of a man who was confined in jail with him, and there was evidence that he and the officers in charge had conspired, by the administration of whisky and opium, to induce the defendant to sign a written confession under circumstances so questionable that the court would not admit it in evidence. In rebuttal, the people offered evidence contradictory of the witnesses who had been called to prove the alibi. And the result was a ease presenting a sharp conflict of evidence on every material point, except the mere corpus delicti, which was fully proved. Under these circumstances, we cannot assume to overrule the verdict of the jurors, who saw and heard the witnesses, upon the ground that the proofs do not seem to be entirely satisfactory to us.

People v. Evans

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief