People v. Compton

Citations

• 123 Cal. 403
• 56 P. 44
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1086

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Forgery—Evidence—Testimony of Accomplice—Conspiracy—Corroboration.—Before a defendant accused of forgery can be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice, showing a conspiracy between himself and the defendant and several other persons, by means of the alleged forgery, to defraud the corporation named, the testimony of the accomplice must he corroborated by evidence independent of that of the accomplice, showing the existence of the conspiracy to defraud, and the fact that the defendant was a member of that conspiracy.</p> <p>Id.—Character of Corroborating Witness—Question for Jury.—The question as to the character of the corroborating witness, and as to whether or not he was an accomplice, is one of fact for the jury.</p> <p>In.—Acts and Declarations of Co-conspirator—Order of Proof— Discretion—Exception to Rule.—The order of evidence prescribed by subdivision 6 of section 1870 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the acts or declarations of a co-conspirator may be received after proof of the conspiracy, is not mandatory; but that section presents the proper order of proof, and it is only in exceptional cases that the court should exercise its discretion to allow a departure therefrom, when the facts from which the conspiracy is to be inferred are so intimately blended with other facts going to constitute the crime that it is difficult to present the evidence in intelligible form without first admitting the testimony of the accomplice.</p> <p>Id.—Instruction—Liberty to Disregard Testimony—Province of Jury. An instruction that the jury are “not at liberty to disregard the testimony of a witness” where they may “believe from the evidence that such witness is corroborated by other competent evidence, and the circumstances in proof in the case,” is misleading if the word “disregard” is used as meaning to “refuse to consider”; and if that word is used in the sense of “reject,” the instruction is an invasion of the province of the jury, who are the so