People v. Bishop

California Supreme Court Oct 11, 1889 No. No. 20515Published

Before: Sharpstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant on matters outside the scope of his direct examination and by instructing the jury that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.

Issues

Whether the prosecution may cross-examine a defendant on matters not covered in his direct examination to impeach his character.
Whether the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding the defendant's guilt constituted reversible error.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A defendant in a criminal action or proceeding cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself; but if he offer himself as a witness he may be cross-examined by the counsel for the people as to all matters about which he was examined in chief.”

“The rulings of the court upon the objections to the questions were clearly erroneous, and in our opinion affected the substantial rights of the defendant.”

“That it was error for the court to say in its charge to the jury: “ I have already remarked to you, gentlemen, that on a certain day this defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to murder William Bonee,” is too clear”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County, and from an order refusing a ;new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Sharpstein, J. Appellant was tried upon a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, and found guilty of an ass.ault with a deadly weapon. He moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial this appeal is taken.

After the defendant had been examined in chief as a witness in his own behalf, he was cross-examined by the prosecution, and during such cross-examination the following questions were put to him, and the following proceedings:^- .

“Mr. Cooler (for the prosecution).—You were there that day (the day of the alleged assault) with a pistol on your person ? A. Yes, sir.

“ Q. What kind of a pistol ? A. Smith and'Wesson, 38.

“ Q. 38-caliber; how many times does it shoot ? A. Five times.

“ Q. Were you going, to get sheep with that ? A. No, sir.

“ Q. What did you carry a .pistol with you for when you went up there to get your sheep ? A. Well, there was a man about two or three weeks before that threatened to cut my heart out, so I packed this pistol.

“Q. A man threatened to cut you heart out? A. Yes, sir.

“ Q. Who was that ? A. It was William Clay, my brother-in-law,.

“ Q. Packed this pistol for your brother-in-law ? A. No; I packed it to'protect myself.

“ Q. Is that the pistol you drew on Johnny Hall?

“Mr. Carothers.—I object to that as not in cross-examination,, and immaterial.

[115]“The Court.—Is it not competent for another reason ?

“Mr. Carothers.—I cannot imagine any reason it would be.

“The Court.—It seems to me you ought to imagine. If a man is in the habit of assaulting men with a deadly weapon, it goes to the character of the witness.

“Mr. Carothers. — They cannot attack his character.

. “ The Court.—They can show that he is a man of bad reputation.

People v. Bishop

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief