Court Opinion

ID: 9574570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:01.701325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:46.077933
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
While the majority opinion gives lip service to the “general rule that evidence of other crimes, where it is offered solely to prove criminal disposition or propensity on the part of the accused to commit the crime charged, should be excluded,” it, in effect abrogates that rule and opens the door for the prosecution to produce evidence relating to wholly irrelevant matters, highly prejudicial to a defendant, on the pretext that such evidence is for the purpose of impeachment. Under the rule announced in the majority opinion, if a defendant was charged with stealing a horse at a certain time and place, and he should happen to testify that he did not steal the horse in question and had never stolen any horses, and that neither his father nor his grandfather had ever stolen any horses, the door would be open *484to the prosecution to offer evidence by way of impeachment that some time during the lives of one or more of these parties one or all of them had at different times and places stolen one or more horses. This may seem to be a farfetched illustration, but I would not be surprised to see a majority of this court announce it as a sound rule of law if the precise question is ever presented. While the majority base their holding in this case, that evidence of other crimes was admissible, upon the ground that such evidence was offered by way of impeachment, the effect is just the same as if it had been offered as a part of the prosecution’s case in chief. If it would have been immaterial and irrelevant as part of the prosecution’s case in chief, it was likewise immaterial and irrelevant as impeaching evidence. That a witness cannot be impeached on a collateral or immaterial matter is well settled. (27 Cal.Jur. 107, 152; People v. Smith, 189 Cal. 31 [207 P. 518]; Steen v. Santa Clara Valley etc. Co., 134 Cal. 355 [66 P. 321]; People v. Cole, 127 Cal. 545 [59 P. 984]; People v. Worthington, 105 Cal. 166 [38 P. 689]; People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 108 [16 P. 537]; People v. Chin Mook Sow, 51 Cal. 597; People v. Burness, 53 Cal.App.2d 214 [127 P.2d 623]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298, 305 [260 P. 901]; Moody v. Peirano, 4 Cal.App. 411 [88 P. 380].)
Defendant was not charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with respect to the three boys who testified in rebuttal and any testimony elicited from them relevant to such conduct was therefore irrelevant and immaterial and wholly collateral to the charges on which defendant was being tried. But the majority argues that this evidence was admissible because defendant opened the door for its reception. This argument is conclusively answered in People v. McDaniel, 59 Cal.App.2d 672, at page 677 [140 P.2d 88]: “The argument that defendant’s counsel ‘opened the gates’ is unavailing. An error that is prejudicial is no less so because it results from a lack of knowledge on the part of either counsel or both. Legitimate cross-examination does not extend to matters improperly admitted on direct examination. Failure to object to improper questions on direct examination may not be taken advantage of on cross-examination to elicit immaterial or irrelevant testimony. The so called ‘open the gates’ argument is a popular fallacy. ‘ Questions designed to elicit testimony which is irrelevant to any issue in the case on trial should be excluded by the judge, even though opposing *485counsel has been allowed, without objection to introduce evidence upon the subject.’ (27 Cal.Jur. p. 74.) ‘It is a settled rule that cross-examination as to matters irrelevant to the issues may and should be excluded—even though, in some cases, testimony relative thereto was elicited upon direct examination—and that a party may not, under the guise of cross-examination, introduce evidence that is not competent within the meaning of the established rules.’ (27 Cal.Jur. p. 106).”
It is true that in this state the trend of decision has been to allow evidence of other crimes generally, to show guilty knowledge, motive, intent, or a common scheme or plan. (8 Cal.Jur. 61.) But in cases involving lewdness, the rule that evidence of other crimes is not admissible has not been relaxed. (People v. Huston, 45 Cal.App.2d 596 [114 P.2d 607], and cases therein cited.) The reason for this is stated in People v. Huston, supra, at page 597: “This court on previous occasions has directed the attention of the profession to the reasons for this rule, which are so aptly stated in the universally acknowledged pronouncement of Lord Chief Justice Hale on the subject of the crime of rape, which also applies to offenses interdicted by section 288 of the Penal Code. It is as follows:
“ ‘It must be remembered, that it is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused though never so innocent; (and we should) be the more cautious upon trial of offenses of tibia nature, wherein the court and jury may with so much ease be imposed upon without great care and vigilance, the heinousness of the offense many times transporting the judge and jury with so much indignation that they are over hastily carried to the conviction of the person accused thereof by the confident testimony sometimes of malicious and false witnesses.’ ”
And the same rule of exclusion is applicable in sodomy cases. (People v. Wyett, 49 Cal.App. 289 [193 P. 153]; People v. Singh, 121 Cal.App. 107 [8 P.2d 898].)
It is the settled policy of the law of this state to give effect to the universally recognized general rule of exclusion under which a defendant may be tried for no offense other than that with which he is charged (8 Cal.Jur. § 167, p. 58; People v. Albertson, 23 Cal.2d 550, 576 [145 P.2d 7]; see, also, Wharton’s Crim. Evidence, §§ 343, 344, pp. 483 et *486seq.; 20 Am.Jur. §309, p. 287; 22 C.J.S., § 682, pp. 1084 et seq.). This rule and the reasons for it are well stated in the leading case of People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 291 [61 N.E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193]: “The general rule of evidence applicable to criminal trials is that the state cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment, either as a foundation for a separate punishment, or as aiding the proofs that he is guilty of the crime charged. (1 Bishop’s New Grim. Pro. §1120.) This rule, so universally recognized and so firmly established in all English-speaking lands, is rooted in that jealous regard for the liberty of the individual which has distinguished our jurisprudence from all others, at least from the birth of Magna Oharta. It is the product of that same, humane and enlightened public spirit which, speaking through our common law, has decreed that every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be protected by the presumption of innocence until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule, and the reasons upon which it rests, are so familiar to every student of our law that they need be referred to for no other purpose than to point out the exceptions thereto. The rule itself has been stated and discussed in this court in a number of cases, but we will cite only a few. In People v. Sharp, 107 N.Y. 427 [14 N.E. 319, 1 Am.St.Rep. 851], it was said: ‘The general rule is that when a man is put upon trial for one offense he is to be convicted, if. at all, by evidence which shows that he is guilty of that offense alone, and that, under ordinary circumstances, proof of his guilt of one or a score of other offenses in his lifetime is wholly excluded.’ In Coleman v. People, 55 N.Y. 81, it is laid down as follows: ‘ The general rule is against receiving evidence of another offense. A person cannot be convicted of one offense upon proof that he committed another, however persuasive in a moral point of view such evidence may be. It would be easier to believe a person guilty of one crime if it was known that he had committed another of a similar character, or, indeed, of any character; but the injustice of such a rule in courts of justice is apparent. It would lead to convictions, upon the particular charge made, by proof of other acts in no way connected with it, and to uniting evidence of several offenses to produce conviction for a single one.’
“In People v. Shea (147 N.Y. 78 [41 N.E. 505]) the rule *487is thus stated: ‘The impropriety of giving evidence showing that the accused had been guilty of other crimes merely for the purpose of thereby inferring his guilt of the crime for which he is on trial may be said to have been assumed and consistently maintained by the English courts ever since the common law has itself been in existence. Two antagonistic methods for the judicial investigation of crime and the conduct of criminal trials have existed for many years. One of these methods favors this kind of evidence in order that the tribunal which is engaged in the trial of the accused may have the benefit of the light to be derived from a record of his whole past life, his tendencies, his nature, his associates, his practices, and in fine all the facts which go to make up the life of a human being. This is the method which is pursued in France, and it is claimed that entire justice is more apt to be done where such a course is pursued than where it is omitted. The common law of England, however, has adopted another, and, so far as the party accused is concerned, a much more merciful doctrine. By that law the criminal is to be presumed innocent until his guilt is made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve men. In order to prove his guilt it is not permitted to show his former character or to prove his guilt of other crimes, merely for the purpose of raising a presumption that he who would commit them would be more apt to commit the crime in question.’ . . . The court of last resort in Pennsylvania thus states the rule: ‘It is the general rule that a distinct crime unconnected with that laid in the indictment cannot be given in evidence against a prisoner. It is not proper to raise a presumption of guilt on the ground that having committed one crime, the depravity it exhibits makes it likely he would commit another. Logically, the commission of an independent offense is not proof in itself of the commission of another crime. Yet it cannot be said to be without influence on the mind, for certainly if one be shown to be guilty of another crime equally heinous, it will prompt a more ready belief that he might have committed the one with which he is charged; it, therefore, predisposes the mind of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty.’ (Shaffner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa.St. 60 [13 Am.Rep. 649].)”
After thus reviewing the general rule, the court in the Molineux case discusses the applicability of various exceptions, saying: “The exceptions to the rule cannot be stated *488with categorical precision. Generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. (Wharton on Crim. Ev. [9th ed.] see. 48; Underhill on Ev. sec. 58; Abbott’s Trial Brief, Crim. Trials, sec. 598.)”
The majority opinion cites and relies upon People v. Hoffman, 199 Cal. 155 [248 P. 504], as authority for the position that proof of the commission of other offenses may be offered as impeachment of defendant’s testimony on direct examination that he has not previously been in trouble or committed other crimes. It is true this case supports the position taken in the majority opinion. The Hoffman case, however, cites no authority for its holding on this proposition and it stands alone in opposition to the great weight of authority supporting the general rule “that evidence of a distinct crime unconnected with that charged in the indictment cannot be received for the purpose of showing-a greater probability that the defendant committed the offense charged.” The obvious vice of allowing the introduction of evidence of other crimes is that it casts upon the defendant the burden of defending against charges he did not know* he would be required to meet on the trial of the specific charge then before the court. One of the fundamental provisions of the federal and state Constitutions is that an accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To admit evidence of such collateral facts would be to oppress the accused by trying him on charges the nature and cause of which he has not been informed and which he has made no preparation to meet, and by prejudicing the jury against him through the assertion of an offense the depravity of which would of necessity create prejudice in the minds of the jurors, and it would prompt a more ready belief that the defendant might have committed the act with which he is charged. The other offenses which the prosecution seeks to prove may be wholly groundless, but it may be impossible for defendant to locate and produce witnesses to refute them during the instant trial. The injustice of his situation is apparent when he is brought into court to answer to a spe*489cific charge, for the defense of which he has had ample time to prepare, and then be forced to meet evidence presented by the prosecution of one or more other offenses wholly unrelated to the specific charge. This was the identical situation in the case at bar and there can be little doubt but that defendant was prejudiced thereby.
Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it was error to admit evidence of other crimes over defendant’s objection. And, obviously, such error was not cured by the provisions of section 4% of article VI of our Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons I would reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
Schauer, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 18, 1948. Carter, J., and Sehauer, J., voted for a rehearing.