People v. Collins

48 Cal. 277, 1874 Cal. LEXIS 144
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1874
DocketNo. 10,087
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 48 Cal. 277 (People v. Collins) 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. Collins, 48 Cal. 277, 1874 Cal. LEXIS 144 (Cal. 1874).

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

It is assumed by counsel that this case is precisely similar to the case of People v. Stanly, 47 Cal. 114, and it is claimed that the judgment should be reversed on the authority of that case. But on looking into the record we find them to be materially different. In that case all the evidence was not before us; and it did not appear that when the four persons accused of the robbery were arrested, no greenbacks were found in their possession. The point which was pressed on the argument of thg,t appeal was, that [279]*279the evidence of the flight of McGovern was not admissible as' a badge of the guilt of the defendant on trial. Considering it solely in that light, we held the evidence to be inadmissible- on the facts as then presented. But in the present case it appears that, on the arrest of the four suspected persons, no portion of the greenbacks of which Simmons was robbed was found in their possession when searched at the station-house. But it was proved that in attempting to escape, McGovern was pursued by the officer for several blocks, and, during his flight, may have thrown away the greenbacks. The evidence was competent as tending to show that he thus had the opportunity after his arrest to dispose of the fruits of the robbery without detection. If the Court, in admitting the evidence, omitted to limit it to this purpose, it was the duty of the counsel to call attention to the fact, and to request a proper charge from the Court on the point. Not having done so, and the evidence being competent for the purpose above indicated, he cannot complain that it was inadmissible for some other purpose.

Judgment affirmed. Bemittitur forthwith.

Mr. Justice McKinstry concurred specially in the judgment.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

Related

People v. Mahoney
304 P.2d 73 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
People v. Weitz
267 P.2d 295 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
People v. James
105 P.2d 947 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
People v. Lorraine
265 P. 893 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
People v. Cox
226 P. 14 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
People v. Lichtenstein
135 P. 692 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
People v. Haydon
123 P. 1102 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
People v. Rollins
111 P. 123 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
State v. Greene
94 P. 987 (Utah Supreme Court, 1908)
Ball v. United States
147 F. 32 (Ninth Circuit, 1906)
State v. Simas
62 P. 243 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1900)
People v. McLean
24 P. 32 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
People v. Olsen
22 P. 125 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Hart v. W. Union Tel. Co.
6 P. 637 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
People v. Welsh
63 Cal. 167 (California Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 Cal. 277, 1874 Cal. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-collins-cal-1874.