People v. Murphy

Citations

• 39 Cal. 52

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law. —Indictment.—In this State, the sufficiency of an indictment is not to he tested, by the rules of the common law, but by the requirements of the Criminal Practice Act.</p> <p>Idem.—Murder.—The statement, in an indictment for murder, of the means by which the killing was accomplished, can never become material in ascertaining the offense charged.</p> <p>Idem. —If the indictment is certain as to the person and the offense charged, and states all the acts necessary to constitute a complete offense, it contains all that is required by the Criminal Practice Act.</p> <p>Idem.—In those cases in which it requires the concurrence of several acts, or the doing of the act under particular circumstances, to constitute an offense, the indictment should state the necessary acts and circumstances.</p> <p>Criminal Pbaotice. —It is not error to permit a witness at the trial to use a sketch of a house, or other object, to explain Ms evidence as to the position of persons and objects, even though the sketch is not shown to be a correct representation, if the same be not. introduced in evidence.</p> <p>Criminal Law.—Evidence.—When the testimony has established the complicity of a third person, not on trial, in the perpetration of the criminal act, evidence of the conduct of that person is admissible against the accused.</p> <p>Idem.—At the trial, the accused, who had been sworn as a witness on his own behalf, was asked, on cross-examination, if he had not made certain statements (which were repeated to him), involving apparently important admissions against himself, to which ho answered: “I said words to that effect, hut not exactly in that way.” It was held, to he error to deny to the accused the right to disclose exactly what he did say, and to state the whole conversation at that time, relating to the same subject-matter.</p>