People v. Dole

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 934
• 51 P. 945
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 1033

Syllabus

<p>Forgery.—Where Defendant, in a Prosecution for Forgery, testified in his examination in chief that he had won the cheek in question at a game of cards, and also testified to his arrest, it was proper, on cross-examination, to ask him if he had admitted such fact to the arresting officers or to the jail officers.</p> <p>Forgery.—On a Trial for Forgery, Testimony That Witness knew of a certain fluid which would remove ink marks from white paper was competent. If such evidence was irrelevant, the admission of it was harmless.</p> <p>Forgery.—It was Harmless Error to Charge That Defendant was guilty of forgery, if he abetted the commission of the crime, where there was no evidence that he had done so.</p> <p>Criminal Law.—The Court Should not Charge in the Disjunctive that a defendant is guilty if he “aided, abetted, or assisted” any other person to commit the crime.</p> <p>Criminal Law.—Error in Using the Disjunctive in a Charge That Defendant was guilty if he “aided, abetted, or assisted” any other person to commit the crime was harmless.</p> <p>Criminal Law.—It was Harmless Error to Charge That “Where Weaker Evidence is produced, when in the power of the party to produce • higher, it is presumed that the higher evidence would be adverse, if it had not been produced,” where the record did not show that defendant offered weaker evidence when it was in his power to produce higher.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Instructions.—Where the Evidence was Largely Direct and Positive, it was not prejudicial error to charge that, where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, yet it is not only consistent with the guilt of defendant, but inconsistent with any other rational conclusion, the jury must convict, notwithstanding such evidence may not be as satisfactory to their minds as the direct testimony of credible eye-witnesses would have been.</p>