Court Opinion

ID: 9545507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:14:24.152801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:00.615536
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. The letter involved demonstrates its inadmissibility. In order to come *27within the res gestae rule the statement or declaration must have been made under circumstances precluding the idea of deliberation or premeditation; it must have been made without opportunity to deliberately concoct a false statement. The contents of this letter purport to be not a spontaneous declaration, but a narrative of past events, a statement of something which had already happened. The letter reads:
“I have arranged with your sisters Alvina and Louise to have them pay you the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) immediately after my death, and thereafter the sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) monthly for a period of One Hundred and Sixty (160) months. Should you pass away before such time, all payments are to cease.
“Should your present wife die before said monthly payments have all been paid you, they will pay you immediately in a lump sum the balance remaining.”
In Williams v. Southern Pac. Co., 133 Cal. 550-555 [65 Pac. 1100, 1102], we find this language: “If spontaneous, and caused by the event, they may nearly always be shown. But if, afterwards, no matter how shortly afterwards, there is an attempt to explain what has happened, or to account for it, or to defend one’s self, or the like, it is incompetent, and inadmissible as res gestae. A narrative, even if given during the occurrence, is inadmissible. (Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co., 123 Cal. 441 [56 Pac. 56].) There the declaration attempted to be shown was made by the injured person while under the car-wheels. This court remarked that the occurrence had not been ended, and yet if it should appear that the remark was a narration of what had occurred, rather than a spontaneous expression—and outgrowth of the occurrence—it was not competent. (See, also, Lissak v. Crocker Estate Co., 119 Cal. 442 [51 Pac. 688] ; 1 G-reenleaf on Evidence, sec. 113.) ” Other statements might be quoted because the authorities are legion to the effect that the narration or recital of past events cannot be admitted under the theory that it is a part of the res gestae. In fact, there is an unanimity of opinion in the eases to the point.
Behearing denied. Edmonds, J., voted for a rehearing.