People v. McCarthy

Citations

• 115 Cal. 255
• 46 P. 1073
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1005

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Homicide—In sanity—Rebuttal—Competency op Witnesses—“Intimate Acquaintance”—Discretion.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of murder, where the sole defense is the insanity of the defendant at the time of the homicide, and rebutting evidence of his sanity is offered by the prosecution, the question of the competency of the rebutting witnesses by reason of their “ intimate acquaintance ” with the defendant, is one of large discretion of the trial judge in determining whether the evidence in any instance brings the witness within the rule of the statute, and his ruling will not be disturbed, except where the evidence is so lacking as to leave no just room for question that the discretion has been improperly exercised.</p> <p>Id.—Statement op Witness as to Acquaintance.—The sufficiency of the acquaintance of a witness with the defendant to enable him to testify as to his sanity is a question for the judge, and not for the witness; and the fact that the witness stated that he did not regard himself as intimately acquainted with the defendant, does not make the admission of his evidence upon the question of sanity of the defendant erroneous, where the facts developed upon his examination justified the admission of the evidence.</p> <p>Id.—Rational Appearance op Dependant—Previous Acquaintance not Essential — Testimony op Jailer — Subsequent Acquaintance.— Previous acquaintance is not required in order to enable a witness to testify to the rational appearance of the defendant at a particular time; and, upon the question of the permanent insanity of the defendant, it is not error to permit the jailer, who received the defendant at the county jail on the day of his arrest, to testify that he appeared rational at that time, and the subsequent acquaintance and intimate knowledge of the jailer as to the defendant’s manner and mental condition, also affords ground for the admission of such testimony, as well as for testimony to his condition while in jail.</p