Skip to main content
· 1/18/1893

People v. Lem You

Citations

  • 97 Cal. 224
  • 32 P. 11
  • 1893 Cal. LEXIS 514

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Perjury—Evidence—Testimony in Cause where Perjury was Committed — Materiality. — Upon the trial of a defendant charged with perjury, evidence of the testimony which the witnesses gave at the trial in which it was alleged the perjury was committed, and the state of the cause in which the alleged false testimony was given, may be proven, in order to show the materiality of the latter; and where evidence of such previous testimony was given for the purpose of showing as a fact that the testimony had been given, and was expressly limited to that purpose, an objection to such evidence, upon the grounds that the defendant was not present when the testimony was given, and had no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses, that one of the witnesses was living within the jurisdiction, and should have been called himself, and thai the other witness was dead, and therefore his former testimony could not be introduced, is without merit.</p> <p>Id. — Testimony, when Material. — The testimony of a witness may be material when contradicting a part of the testimony given by another witness which is material, or if going to the credit or discredit of other witnesses.</p> <p>Id. — Right of Defendant to be Confronted with Witnesses. — The rule that a defendant in a criminal action must be confronted with his witnesses does not apply upon a prosecution for perjury, where all that is sought to be proven is the mere fact that certain testimony had been given upon the trial where the alleged perjury was committed, and the defendant is confronted with the witnesses who testify as to that fact.</p> <p>Id.—Testimony of Short-hand Repórter — Reading from Notes.— Where the official stenographic reporter of the court in which the tidal was had wherein the alleged perjury was committed was sworn as a witness upon the trial of the defendant for perjury, and testified that he had taken notes of the testimony in the former trial, and that they were correct, it was not err

Judges: McFarland

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.