People v. Clark
Citations
- 106 Cal. 32
- 39 P. 53
- 1895 Cal. LEXIS 565
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Oral Instructions—Certificate by Court—Harmless Error.—It is the duty of the court, where oral instructions are given of its own motion, which are taken down by the reporter and afterwards written out, to certify them, so as to make them part of the record without a bill of exceptions; but the refusal of the court so to certify them is harmless error, where the instructions are embodied in a bill of exceptions, which forms part of the record upon appeal of the defendant, and are available to the appellant.</p> <p>Id.—Robbery— Evidence—Identification of Defendant — Conversations.—For the purpose of identification of a defendant charged with robbery it may be shown that the witness identified one of the robbers as a man with whom he had a conversation prior to the robbery, at a certain place, in the presence of another person, without knowing the name of the man identified, and evidence of the original conversation with the defendant, and of a subsequent conversation between the witness and the other person as to the name of the person identified, is admissible, and can be productive of no injury, where no statement or declaration testified to was touching the commission of the offense, and the witness positively identified the defendant at the trial as one of the active participants in the robbery.</p> <p>Id.—Understanding of Witness—Actions of Robbers.—A Chinese wit- - ness who was present at the time of the robbery, and did not understand what was said in English by the robbers, may properly testify to his understanding that they wanted him to go out, by the way they pointed their revolvers, and pointed toward the door.</p> <p>Id.—Proof of Absence of Witness.—It is proper to allow one of the witnesses to the robbery to explain the absence of another of the witnesses who was present at the time of the robbery, and not present at the trial, by showing where he was at the time of trial, and why he was absent.</p> <p>Id.—Harmless Ruling—Leading Question
Judges: Haynes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 319×
- People v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1958-04-29· cited 261×
- State v. FairWashington Supreme Court· 1904-05-02· cited 33×
- People v. MatthewsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-09-16· cited 4×
- People v. SchunkeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1934-08-31· cited 3×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced 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.