People v. Fitzpatrick

Citations

• 80 Cal. 538
• 22 P. 215
• 1889 Cal. LEXIS 953

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Receiving Stolen Property—View by Jury—Insuejtcient Objections. — Upon the trial of a defendant accused of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, it is an improper and unauthorized proceeding to conduct the jury to view a steer alleged to have been one of the cattle stolen; the only authorized view of a jury being of the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed; but if the proceeding is not objected to as being irregular and unauthorized, and an exception is taken only upon grounds which are_ not tenable, it cannot be objected on appeal for the first time that the proceeding was irregular and unauthorized.</p> <p>Id. — Proof of Offense. — Upon the trial of an accusation of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, it is not necessary to prove either that the defendant had received all the property stated in the indictment, or that the part which he did receive was of a particular value. The character or grade of the offense does not depend upon the value of the property received.</p> <p>Td.—Evidence — Conduct of Defendant when Arrested.—Evidence of the prosecution as to the boisterous conduct of the defendant when arrested, and his objection to being disgraced by arrest, cannot be prejudicially erroneous to the defendant.</p> <p>Id.—Expert Evidence — Brands and Cattle-marks.—A witness who shows sufficient knowledge about brands and cattle-marks to testify upon the subject may be examined as an expert, although not familiar with particular brands used in certain counties.</p>