Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY TALMAN, Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1915-01-18
Citations: 26 Cal. App. 348
Docket Number: Crim. No. 280
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY TALMAN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 348–352

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 280.
Third Appellate District.
January 18, 1915.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HARRY TALMAN, Appellant.
Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Sufficiency op Evidence.—In a prosecution for grand larceny for having stolen a sorrel mare the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction where it showed the possession of the stolen property a few days after the theft by defendant and another who were jointly charged with the crime, the flight of the accused, they having been arrested one hundred and fifty miles from the scene of the offense, their presence in the immediate neighborhood at or near the time the animal was stolen, their abandonment near the place from which said sorrel mare had been taken, of an emaciated and exhausted horse which they had been driving, and contradictory and unreasonable explanations made by the defendants of their possession of the mare and of their peregrinations through the country.
Id.—Argument—Absence op Misconduct.—It is held in this case that the record does not disclose anything in the address of the district attorney to the jury outside of the legitimate range of argument or to which exception could be justly taken.
Id.—Interviewing Witnesses by Dependant.—In such a case the law does not confer upon the defendant the right to demand that the sheriff conduct him to certain parts of the state that he may interview parties whose names he does not know, but by whom he expects to prove an alibi. *
Id.—Evidence—'Cross-examination—Impeachment op Dependant— Examination prom Written Transcript op Interview With Dependant—Section 2052 Code op Crviu Procedure.—In such a case where the district attorney on cross-examination of defendant, in laying the foundation for impeachment, read from a transcript of notes taken by a stenographer in an interview of the defendants by the district attorney after their arrest, in the presence of the sheriff and the stenographer, the district attorney was not required under section 2052 of the Code of Civil Procedure to exhibit the transcript to the witness, he never having had anything to do with the execution of it or having seen it before; and the refusal to permit the witness to inspect the transcript in such a case, even if technically erroneous, could not have resulted in prejudice to appellant, where there is nothing to indicate that the district attorney did not correctly read the transcript, or that he refused defendant’s counsel the right to inspect it, or that the cross-examination in reference to it was at all abridged.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County and from an order denying a new trial. J. A. Plummer, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John R. Cronin, and C. W. Gillespie, for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny for having stolen a sorrel mare belonging to Charles and Alice Dreyer. There is no merit in the claim of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The possession of the stolen property, a few days after the theft, by defendant and one Allen Dodge, who were jointly charged with the crime, the flight of the accused, they having been arrested one hundred and fifty miles from the scene of the offense, their presence in the immediate neighborhood at or near the time the animal was stolen, their abandonment, near the place from which said sorrel mare had been taken, of an emaciated and exhausted horse which they had been driving, furnish abundant inculpatory circumstances to warrant the conclusion of the jury. It may be added that the conviction of the guilt of defendant is greatly strengthened by the contradictory and unreasonable explanation made by himself and his associate in the crime of their possession of the mare and of their peregrinations through the country. Indeed, one can hardly read the entire record without an abiding conviction of the guilt of defendant, and any other verdict would have .resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Some contention is made that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in his address to the jury. The objection is hardly specific enough to merit attention, but we have examined the record of his remarks and find nothing outside of the legitimate range of argument or to which exception could justly be taken.
Appellant complains that the sheriff refused to conduct him to certain parts of the state that he might interview parties whose names he did not know, but by whom he expected to prove an alibi. The law confers upon a defendant no right to make such demand. It is, perhaps, needless to add that such practice, if permitted, would be likely to lead to great abuse without any compensating benefit. It would encourage simulated defenses, entail grievous trouble and expense and afford additional opportunities for a defendant to escape from the custody of the officer. The law is ample, in this matter, to protect the interests of one charged with a crime. Defendant could have obtained a subpoena for his witnesses, and he should have been able so to identify them that their attendance could have been secured.
The only question about which there can be any serious controversy grows out of the district attorney's effort to lay the foundation for the impeachment of appellant and his co-defendant. It seems that after their arrest they were questioned in the county jail by the district attorney in the presence of the sheriff and a stenographer and by the last named the whole proceeding was taken down in shorthand and afterward transcribed. On cross-examination, at the trial, the district attorney, reading from this transcript, interrogated the witness as to certain questions and answers therein appearing. Objection was made upon, the ground that the writing should be shown to the witness before he could be required to answer This position was taken by reason of section 2052 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing: "A witness may also be impeached by evidence that he has made, at other times, statements inconsistent with his present testimony; but before this can be done the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of times, places and persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements and, if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements he in writing, they must he shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them." But the attorney-general contends in effect that the last clause of this section confines it to "written statements" of the witness. "If the statements (of the witness) be in writing," in other words, means: "If the statements have been made in writing. ' In such case it is highly proper that they should be shown the witness. But there would seem to be no reason for requiring the writing to be exhibited to the witness where he has never had anything to do with the execution of it or even has not seen it before. The inspection by the witness of a typewritten transcript, made by a stranger to him, and which he had never seen before, could not assist the witness in his recollection of oral statements which he may have made. At least, it would afford him no greater aid than to have them fully read to him. And there is no contention that the attention of the witness was not directed to all the circumstances and declarations that had any bearing whatever upon the alleged inconsistent statements. But it is not necessary to decide this question, as there is nothing to indicate that the district attorney did not correctly read said transcript or that he refused defendant's counsel an opportunity to inspect it or that the right of cross-examination in reference to it was at all abridged, or that, in deed, the ruling of the court, if technically erroneous, resulted in any prejudice to appellant.
We think he was justly convicted and the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial are affirmed.
tíhipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.