People v. Choy Ah Sing
Citations
- 84 Cal. 276
- 24 P. 379
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 803
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law— Assault with Deadly Weapon — Flight op Accused— Conflicting Evidence — Instruction. —Upon trial for an assault with a deadly weapon, where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the flight of the accused, after the assault, was to avoid friends of the assaulted person, who were chasing him, or was caused by a consciousness of guilt, it is for the jury to determine the character of the flight; and an instruction that such flight was a circumstance tending to establish guilt, to be considered with other circumstances and the testimony in the case, though not alone sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty, is erroneous, as assuming that the flight was of a kind which tended to establish guilt, and in effect excluding the defendant’s evidence from the jury.</p> <p>Id. — Self-defense — Reasonable Doubt — Instruction. — An instruction that “it is not necessary that the particulars of the transaction given in evidence by the defendant to sustain a plea of self-defense should be sufficient to satisfy the minds of the jury; it is sufficient if they raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to the guilt of the defendant, and if they do raise such reasonable doubt, then the defendant is entitled to an acquittal,” while not so clear as it might have been, contains no prejudicial error, in view of the last clause, which states the correct rule. Id. —'Evidence— Attempt to Bribe Prosecuting Witness.—It is error to pennit the prosecuting witness to testify that he had been approached by persons other than the defendant or his authorized agents, who offered him a bribe not to prosecute the defendant, and to have the prosecution dismissed, if the prosecution does not offer to connect the defendant with it, but is allowed to question the prosecuting witness, against the objection of the defendant, in such a way that the acts of any person whatever, though unauthorized, could be given in evidence.</p> <p>Id. — Attempt of Third Parties to Settle Prosecu
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that Mallory was decided under the old Evidence Code and declining to address whether it remained good law
- noting that Mallory was decided under the old Evidence Code and declining to address whether it remained good law
- “As a matter of law, a failure to interpose a meritless objection does not amount to unreasonable performance.”
- no deficient performance in failure to make meritless objection, and thus no ineffectiveness in failing to make objection that the trial court “would not have been required to sustain”
- “Mallory was decided, of course, under the old rules of evidence, which also properly were applied in this case .... We offer no opinion about the continuing viability of Mallory under the new Evidence Code.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Foote
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.