Skip to main content
· 5/3/1894

People v. Greening

Citations

  • 102 Cal. 384
  • 36 P. 665
  • 1894 Cal. LEXIS 655

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Arson—Description op Partnership Property—Evidence—Identification.—Where the property which a defendant accused of arson is charged with having burned is described in the information as a building belonging to a partnership firm named in the information, and the proof shows that the building was used by the partnership in their business at the time it was burned, and that the property had been bought by one of the partners some years previously, and that he had afterwards conveyed an undivided one-half of it to his copartner, such proof is sufficient to identify the property destroyed with that which was laid in the information, and it is immaterial for the purposes of the trial whether the building was held by the partners as cotenants or as joint tenants.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Declarations op Defendant—Testimony op Stenographer—Reading Notes to Jury.—Where a stenographer has testified to certain statements made by the defendant iu the jail after his arrest, refreshing his memory from shorthand notes, and testifying that he had written, out longhand notes, which was a true and correct statement of what the defendant had said, it will not be held error for the court to permit the district attorney in his argument to the jury to read from the statement written out in longhand, although such statement had not been formerly introduced in evidence, if the record does not show what was read to the jury, or that the longhand statement was in any manner different from the testimony given by the stenographer.</p> <p>Id.—Arrangement Between Officers and Witness—Cross-Examination—Harmless Error.—Where the evidence is undisputed that the defendant admitted that he set fire to the building, an error in refusing to permit him to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution to show certain conversations between them and the arresting officers prior to the burning of the building to the effect that the officers had been informed that the fire was to occur, and that in

Judges: Beatty, Harrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.