People v. Lambert
Citations
- 120 Cal. 170
- 52 P. 307
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 730
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Rape—Evidence—Complaint of Prosecutrix—Corroboration—Res Gestie—Hearsay.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of the crime of rape, the fact of early complaint by the prosecutrix is independent and original evidence, admissible in corroboration of her testimony; but the complaint itself forms no part of the res gestae, and its contents are objectionable hearsay; and to permit the prosecutrix or any other witness to testify to the contents of the complaint, against the objection of the defendant, is highly prejudicial error.</p> <p>In.—Lonq Delayed Complaint Inadmissible—Instruction.—To take the fact of complaint of the prosecutrix out of the category of inadmissible evidence, the complaint must be made at the earliest practicable moment after the alleged offense, or the delay must be satisfaetorily excused or justified; and evidence of a complaint long delayed, where the delay in making it is not satisfactorily explained, is inadmissible; and an instruction based upon such inadmissible evidence is erroneous.</p> <p>Id.—Impeachment—Deposition Taken at Preliminary Examination—Explanation.—Where the attention of a witness is called upon the cross-examination to his deposition taken before the justice of the peace at the preliminary examination for purposes of impeachment, he has a right, upon redirect examination, to explain his former testimony; and it is reversible error to refuse to permit him to do so, on the alleged ground that the deposition is a record which cannot be explained or varied.</p> <p>Id.—Improper Reading oe Deposition—Contradictory Parts Only Admissible.—It is improper to read the whole of the former deposition of the-witness for purposes of impeachment under pretense that some portions of it are contradictory of his testimony at the trial; but the proper course is to read only those portions that are contradictory, and, being in writing, they must be shown to the witness before any question is asked concerning them, unless he asks t
Judges: Chipman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1961-02-09· cited 171×
- People v. HurlburtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1958-12-18· cited 59×
- People v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1939-08-15· cited 58×
- State v. GriffinWashington Supreme Court· 1906-09-08· cited 38×
- People v. HubbellCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-08-14· cited 27×
- State v. PriceWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1922-12-12· cited 26×
- People v. LaMantainCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1949-01-17· cited 18×
- State v. WinslowUtah Supreme Court· 1906-05-12· cited 17×
- People v. WatrousCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-05-15· cited 13×
- People v. MusumeciCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-05-31· cited 13×
- Mitsuo Umemoto v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court· 1936-06-25· cited 12×
- Fresno City Lines, Inc. v. HermanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1950-05-04· cited 5×
- Crocker First Federal Trust Co. v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1930-02-24· cited 2×
- New York Life Ins. v. NeashamNinth Circuit· 1918-04-01
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. MayesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-04-23· cited 52×
- People v. GardnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-04-11· cited 47×
- People v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-01-21· cited 31×
- People v. WesselCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-05-25· cited 18×
- People v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-08-27· cited 14×
- People v. TierneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-05-22· cited 6×
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.