Court Opinion

ID: 9856698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:55:43.468159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:23.977892
License: Public Domain

CRAIL, P. J.,
Dissenting.—I dissent.
The defendant saw fit on Ms part to drag in before the jury his statement that he had never been rude to children, which, in effect, was a statement that he had never been guilty of similar prior conduct as that upon which he was being tried. It is the custom for the district attorney to attempt to impeach the defendant on cross-examination by showing that some of his statements upon the witness-stand are false. In the instant case, with the defendant refusing to give direct answers and answering as he did, some leeway should be taken. The cross-examination in regard to the other offense was manifestly not offered “to prove the specific crime charged’’, but was offered solely for the purpose of *375contradicting the testimony of the defendant himself as to his prior conduct. If the defendant saw fit to place before the jury his own testimony with regard to such prior conduct he should not be entitled to a new trial because the People were able, out of his own mouth, to disprove the truth of his statement. In a running cross-examination during the trial there manifestly must be some leeway, and I do not think that the admission of this evidence would merit reversal of the case in view of article VI, section 4%, of the Constitution, which commands us, among other things, that no judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted in any case on the ground of the improper admission of evidence unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. I think the evidence complained of is incidental and trivial. This is not such a case as where the state undertakes to prove similar offenses as a part of its case in chief. For such cases, see People v. Asavis, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 492 [71 Pac. (2d) 307], and People v. Anthony, 185 Cal. 152 [196 Pac. 47], the two cases upon which defendant mostly relies.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 16, 1938. Shenk, J., voted for a hearing.