People v. Patterson

Citations

• 124 Cal. 102
• 56 P. 882
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 949

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Robbery — Sufficiency of Evidence.—The evidence .reviewed, and held sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of robbery against the defendant in feloniously taking money from the person of another.</p> <p>Id.—Refusal to Strike out Evidence.—It is not error to refuse to strike out the testimony of a witness called for the prosecution which had some relevancy to the issues in the case, and was not prejudicial to the defendant, nor to refuse to strike out testimony introduced without objection on cross-examination about matters testified to in chief.</p> <p>Id.—Cross-examination.—Where a witness had testified in chief for the defendant that he heard of the prosecuting witness being robbed on a certain date, he may be asked, on cross-examination, how he knew he was robbed at that time.</p> <p>Id.—Questions by District Attorney—Discourteous Language—Misconduct.—The mere asking of a single question by the district attorney, the objection to which was sustained, does not warrant a reversal of the judgment; nor is the use of discourteous language in talking to the jury respecting the counsel of the defendant, a portion of which was withdrawn, and which could not have been in a material sense prejudicial to the defendant, such misconduct as requires the granting of a new trial.</p> <p>Id.—Discrediting of False Witness—Naming of Witness—Modification of Instructions.—It is proper to modify an instruction requested by the defendant to the effect that if the'jury found that a witness named testified falsely in one place, they were at liberty to disregard his testimony entirely, by striking out the name of the witness specified, and inserting in place thereof the words “any witness,” leaving it to counsel to make the application.</p>