People v. Mates

DORAN, J. Appellant was charged by infortiiation, with four counts of forgery. Two prior felony convictions were also alleged. Following a jury trial defendant was found guilty on four counts. The two priors were admitted before the trial. The defendant elected to represent himself at the trial. Defendant appeared in propria persona and argued 9 motion for a new. trial, which was denied. Defendant also appears in propria persona on appeal.

It is argued on appeal,

“That the court erred, as a matter of law rather than as a matter of discretion, when it ordered appellant to answer, on cross examination, and over his proper and timely objections, questions propounded by the district attorney, which where without, and beyond, the scope of appellant’s examination-in-chief. This being contrary to the Vth & XlVth amendments to the Constitution of the United States as well as contrary to Section 13 of Article I, to the Constitution of the State of California, and contrary to Section 1323 of the • California Penal Code.”

“The the court erred, as a matter of law rather than as matter of discretion, when it denied appellant’s motion that a mistrial be declared, when said motion was properly and /timely made and was based upon statutory provisions, (Sec. "1323 CaLP.C.), which restricts the cross-examination of a ¡defendant to matters to which he has testified during his examination-in-chief. ’ ’

“That the court erred, as a matter of law rather than as a matter of discretion, when it admitted into evidence, over -the'propér and.timely objections of the appellant, a recording which contained evidence of appellant’s guilt to a separate ’•and 'distinct- offense, not a part of the res gestae, the court having been warned, by appellant, that such matters were contained within the said recording.

[57]“This resulted in the appellant being tried on the issue of another crime without any information or charge against him before the jury.

“Such procedure and proceedings violated due process of law guaranteed by the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as by Section 13 of Article I, to the Constitution of the State of California.”

At the trial defendant relied largely on entrapment as a defense. As pointed out in respondent’s brief, however,