People v. Prather
Citations
- 120 Cal. 660
- 53 P. 259
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 831
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Description of Property—Estate of Deceased Persons.—Under the Penal Code, an information for grand larceny, in which the property stolen is described as cattle belonging to the estate of a deceased person, without specifying his heirs or legal representatives, is sufficient to identify the act constituting the offense, and is not demurrable for defect in the description.</p> <p>Id.—Venue of Offense—Cattle Driven from County.—Where the offense is charged in the information as having been completed in the county, and there is evidence tending to sustain the charge, the fact that the cattle were proved to have been driven out of the county by the defendant, is immaterial, and cannot be considered upon demurrer to the information.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Withdrawing Witness to Connect Testimony.—It is proper practice to permit a witness to he withdrawn, in order to lay a foundation for the admissibility of his testimony.</p> <p>In.—Declarations of Defendant.—Testimony, the object of which is to prove declarations of the defendant in his own favor, is not admissible.</p> <p>Id.—Impeachment of Witness—Conversation with District Attorney.— Where a brother of the defendant, who had been arrested, charged with the same larceny and discharged without examination, was called as a witness for the defendant, the district attorney may, on cross-examination, ask him relative to a conversation had between the witness and himself for the purpose of impeaching him, and testing his credibility.</p> <p>Id.—Impeachment of Defendant—General Reputation.—Where the defendant offers himself as a witness, he may be impeached by proof that his general reputation for truth, honesty, and integrity is bad.</p> <p>Id.—Instructions—Grand Larceny—Stealing of Cattle—Guilt of Defendant.—Where the court gave proper instructions to the jury as to grand larceny in the felonious stealing of a cow, steer, bull, calf, etc., and then instructed them that as there is no evidence of a
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1940-07-16· cited 44×
- Fenner v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia· 1929-06-13· cited 23×
- State v. HenrySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1973-08-28· cited 22×
- State v. RathboneIdaho Supreme Court· 1901-12-16· cited 15×
- State v. WilsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1915-12-18· cited 6×
- State v. VincentSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1902-07-02· cited 5×
- State v. StewardNevada Supreme Court· 1958-03-14· cited 5×
- State v. HamSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1908-01-07· cited 4×
- State v. LoganSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1920-04-09· cited 1×
- People v. GonzalesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-28· cited 1×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-05-28· cited 36×
- People v. BentleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-06-22· cited 27×
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-04-10· cited 27×
- People v. Leong QuongCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-02-28· cited 26×
- People v. BeckCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 12×
- People v. DilwoodCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-03-28· cited 11×
- People v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 8×
- People v. GreeningCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-05-03· cited 6×
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.