The record-union., 1898-12-15
ANOTHER CHANCE FOR LYNCH
THE strawberry BLONDE TO
BE TRIED ANEW,
Supreme Court Says Some Irrela-
vent Testimony Was Admit
ted at the Trial.

| On the 14th of January last Harry
Lynch, a member of the gang, COM
posed of himself, Frank Davis and Fred
Howard, who robbed a grocery store
at Second and @ streets, was convicted
of robbery, and on the 18th he was SEN
fenced to ten years in the State prison.
J j. O. Prewett and w. F. Renfro, at
torneys for the defense, appealed from
the verdict, and the Supreme Court has
reversed the case and ordered a new
trial Following is
THE DECISION.
Defendant Lynch was jointly, with
Frank Davis and Fred Howard, inform
ed against for the crime Of robbery
This appeal is from a judgment of con-
viction against Lynch, and from an
order denying his motion for a new
trial.
First-Defendant contends that he
was convicted upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice, and that
therefore, under Section I'LL, P. c.,
the judgment cannot stand.
The only direct evidence of defend
ants connection with the crime was
given by his co-defendant Davis.
AS we think the judgment and order
must be reversed upon other grounds,
it is sufficient to say upon the point
Just stated that we are unable to agree
with defendant. 1t appears to us that
there is evidence in addition to that
Of the accomplice which, without its
aid, tends to connect the defendant
with the commission Of the offense
charged
Second-On redirect examination of
Davis by the District Attorney he ask
ed the witness to state ''the conversa-
ton that occurred on Saturday night
the night before the robbery when
Lynch, Howard and yourself were pres
ent; anything that was said between
Howard and Lynch, or anything that
was said between yourself and Lynch" >"
Defendant objected as irrelevant, i'm
material and incompetent and was
overruled and an exception was re-
served. The witness answered: Lynch
started to tell us about a fellow named
the Rambler. He told US that the
Rambler and him were going down to
hold up the station at Davisville; also
the big hotel across the railroad. He
only had one gun" Defendants coun-
sci moved to strike out this answer as
Irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.
The motion was denied. We think this
ruling was prejudicial error.
Testimony must be confined to the
issues Evidence Of collateral facts are
excluded under the rule as being in
capable of affording any reasonable
presumption or Inference as to the prin-
cipal fact or matter in dispute. / Green.
Ev., Secs. 81 and 50. 1t is under this
rule that it is held to be incompetent
for the prosecution to give evidence of
facts tending to prove another distinct
offense for the purpose of raising an
inference that the person had commit
ted the offense in question. So also it
Is incompetent to give evidence Of the
prisoners tendency to commit the Of
fense with which he is charged. Ros-
GOES Grim. Ev, *S1; People VS.. Tyler,
SO Cal, 500; People VS.. Vidal, Vol. XIV,
Cal Dec, p. 20.
| Third--The witness Smith was called
for defendant and testified that he
knew defendant, and that defendant
| had five or six dollars on Saturday, Oc-
tober Sd. the day before the robbery. On
cross-examination the District Attor-
ney asked the witness if he and de-
|
ton, to which witness replied that they
were once The witness was then ask
ed: Weren't you there with him in
the County Jail?" The question was
objected to as Irrelevant and incompe-
tent. Objection was overruled and the
witness answered, Yes" The District
Attorney claimed that the evidence was
admissible for the purpose Of showing
the relations Of the witness and pris-
oner. If this fact had come out as part
of a narrative in which the witness was
endeavoring to explain their relations it
might be that, under the rule as laid
down in People VS.. Ward, 1O5 Cal, $50,
and People VS.. Kuches, 40 Cal, 566, 1t
should be allowed to stand; but the
bare fact that the two were together In
| q Jail at Stockton, or elsewhere, would
not be sufficient to justify the inference
Of bias on the part of the witness. And
in it's effect upon defendant, as furnish
ing AN inference pointing to the prob
ability of his being guilty Of the offense
charged, it was inadmissfble for the
reasons heretofore stated. People VS.
VIDAL, supra.
| The court gave the following instruc-
| ton for the people: "If you believe
that an accomplice has testified in this
lease and you believe, beyond reason
able doubt, from his testimony, that the
defendant, Lynch, is guilty of the al
LEGGED offense in the information
lcharged, and then, in connection there
with, you believe from the evidence,
outside of that which tends to connect
the defendant with the commission of
the offense, other than shown in the
lcommission of the offense itself and the
circumstances thereof, then 1t will be
your bounden duty to and the defend
ant guilty" The conviction of Lynch
largely rested upon the evidence of his
Iaccomplice, Davis. I do not think this
instruction clearly points out the rule
that the evidence of the accomplice is
insufficient in itself to justify convic-
ton; nor does it clearly point out what
degree Of proof is sufficient as corrob-
lorative of that Of the accomplice.
The judgment and order should be
reversed and the cause remanded.