People v. O'Brien

Citations

• 106 Cal. 104
• 39 P. 325
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 575

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Presumption oe Innocence.—The presumption of innocence does not cease upon the submission of the cause to the jury; and it is error for the court to instruct the jury that the presumption of innocence goes with the defendant until the case is finally submitted to them.</p> <p>Id.—Embezzlement—Evidence—Deposit of Money by Prosecuting Witness—Anticipation of Evidence for Defendant.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of the crime of embezzlement it is error to allow the people, when putting in their evidence in chief, to show that the prosecuting witness had certain money on deposit, in order to strengthen or bolster the testimony of such witness, in anticipation of the evidence for the defendant. ' “</p> <p>Id.—Insufficient Proof of Embezzlement—Conflicting Evidence.—The rule applicable to conflicting evidence does not prevent the review of the sufficiency of the evidence to show a ease of embezzlement, where the conflicting evidence is as to facts, which, if taken as proven, do not make out a case of embezzlement.</p> <p>Id.—Absence of Felonious Intent—Failure to Pay Debt—Disputed Accounts Between Attorney and Client.—Where there is no evidence tending to show an intent to steal, or to convert the property of another clandestinely or feloniously, the offense of embezzlement is not made out; nor can the statute against embezzlement be used to punish a party for a mere failure to comply with a pecuniary obligation; and where the evidence shows merely a ease of disputed mutual accounts between an attorney and client, for which a civil action is the appropriate remedy, the charge of embezzlement is not sustained.</p>