People v. Hayashida

California Court of Appeal Dec 9, 1955 No. Crim. No. 5420Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings, cross-examination limitations, or impeachment procedures, and therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting cross-examination beyond the scope of direct examination.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant regarding a prior burglary conviction without establishing it was a felony.
Whether the trial court erred in its rulings regarding witness testimony, cross-examination limits, and the exclusion of evidence for lack of foundation.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record reveals no prejudicial errors. The judgment and order are affirmed.”

“If the burglary referred to was in fact a misdemeanor it was defendant’s privilege to reveal it, in which circumstances a motion to strike and a request that the’ court instruct the jury to disregard the incident would have been in order.”

DORAN, J. Appellant and two other defendants were charged with robbery in Count I and for kidnapping in Count II. The two other defendants pleaded guilty to Count I. The appellant was adjudged guilty by the jury of both counts. The appeal is from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial.

At the trial both of the codefendants testified for the prosecution. Defendants’ testimony in effect was a denial of any connection with the robbery.

As recited in appellant’s brief:

" The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error in

“(1) Permitting respondent to cross-examine defendant beyond the scope of the direct examination.

“ (2) Permitting improper impeachment of appellant.

“(3) Permitting respondent’s witnesses to testify as to conclusions of law.

“(4) Limiting appellant’s cross-examination of respondent’s witnesses.

“ (5) Excluding competent and relevant evidence.”

Item 1 relates to defendant’s bank account and certain checks. No prejudicial error resulted in connection with this examination. On the contrary, defendant explained the bank account and checks and the cross-examination was not “beyond the scope of the direct examination. ’ ’

As to Item 2, the following occurred:

“Q. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? A. No, sir.

' “Q. Isn’t it a fact that on the 6th day of December, 1946, [688]in the Superior Court of Oakland, you pleaded guilty to burglary ?

“Mr. Garber: Objected to, your Honor, being incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial.

" The Court : Objection will be overruled. You may answer the question. A. Yes, sir.”

Appellant argues, ‘ ‘ In the instant appeal, appellant denied that he was ever convicted of a felony. No record to the contrary was ever produced. Nevertheless, the court permitted the District Attorney, over appellant's objection, to question appellant about a specific offense, without producing any evidence that such offense was a felony. It is submitted that such action on the part of the District Attorney was contrary to the law and was highly prejudicial and constituted prejudicial and reversible error. ’ ’

People v. Hayashida

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief