People v. Awa

California Supreme Court

People v. Awa

27 Cal. 638

DecidedJuly 1, 1865

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Cal. 638 (People v. Awa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Awa, 27 Cal. 638 (Cal. 1865).

Pincite

Opinions

By the Court, Sawyer, J.

The appellant, a Chinaman, was convicted of manslaughter. On the trial he offered another Chinaman as a witness on his behalf. The District Attorney objected to his examination on the ground, that he is incompetent to testify for or against a white person, and the testimony of the witness w'as excluded by the Court. Section fourteen of the “Act concerning crimes and punishments,” relied on by respondents, reads as follows : “ No Indian, or person having one half or more of Indian blood, or Mongolian, or Chinese, shall be permitted to give evidence in favor or against any white person.” (Laws 1863, p. 69.)

This restriction upon the competency of a witness must be strictly construed in favor of life, liberty and public justice. The people as a political organization—the State—and not any individual member of the community, is the party on one [639]*639side. The terms of the Act do not strictly apply to the People as a political organization, and we think the plaintiff —the State—is not a white person within the meaning of its provisions.

For this error the judgment must be reversed and a new trial had, and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Sawyer, J.

The appellant, a Chinaman, was convicted of manslaughter. On the trial he offered another Chinaman as a witness on his behalf. The District Attorney objected to his examination on the ground, that he is incompetent to testify for or against a white person, and the testimony of the witness w'as excluded by the Court. Section fourteen of the “Act concerning crimes and punishments,” relied on by respondents, reads as follows : “ No Indian, or person having one half or more of Indian blood, or Mongolian, or Chinese, shall be permitted to give evidence in favor or against any white person.” (Laws 1863, p. 69.)

This restriction upon the competency of a witness must be strictly construed in favor of life, liberty and public justice. The people as a political organization—the State—and not any individual member of the community, is the party on one [639]*639side. The terms of the Act do not strictly apply to the People as a political organization, and we think the plaintiff —the State—is not a white person within the meaning of its provisions.

For this error the judgment must be reversed and a new trial had, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Cal. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-awa-cal-1865.