People v. Hoy Yen

34 Cal. 176
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1867·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

The statement of the prisoner that he would point out the place where the money was buried, in connection with the fact that he did, in pursuance of this promise, afterward point out the place, and the fact proved by other witnesses, that the stolen money was found buried at the place indicated, was admissible in evidence, although the promise to point out the place was not voluntarily made. (1 Greenl. Ev. 281.) The statement, “ I buried it in the ground there,” was inadmissible, it being a part of an involuntary admission. But the Court struck it out on motion of defendant’s counsel, and afterward, by a very full and pointed instruction drawn by defendant’s counsel, and given at his request, fully guarded the jury against considering, 'or giving any [178]*178iveight to the statement so excluded. We think the record presents nothing of Avhich defendant can justly complain. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed no opinion.

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

People v. Hoy Yen, 34 Cal. 176 (Cal. 1867).

34 Cal. 176 (People v. Hoy Yen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ditson
369 P.2d 714 (California Supreme Court, 1962)
People v. Matlock
336 P.2d 505 (California Supreme Court, 1959)
People v. Dones
56 P.R. 201 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1940)
Pueblo v. Dones
56 P.R. Dec. 211 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1940)
People v. Herges
111 P. 624 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Juergens v. Thom
40 N.W. 559 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
State v. Douglass
20 W. Va. 770 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1882)
State v. . Lindsey
78 N.C. 499 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)