People v. O'Brien

California Supreme Court

People v. O'Brien

6 P. 695, 66 Cal. 602, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 511

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 23, 1885

DocketNo. 20,041

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 6 P. 695 (People v. O'Brien) 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. O'Brien, 6 P. 695, 66 Cal. 602, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 511 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinions

MORRISON, C. J.

The defendant was charged, in an information filed by the district attorney of San Francisco, with the embezzlement of a certain sum of money, to wit, $1000, the same being the property of the state, and on the trial he was called and examined as a witness on his own behalf. On the examination in chief his testimony was directed and confined to the alleged embezzlement of the particular sum of money mentioned in the information, but on the cross-examination he was [603]*603examined generally as a witness in the case. This course of proceeding was objected to very frequently by his attorney, but the objections were as often overruled by the court, and the examination was allowed to be as general as could have been made of any other witness in the case; the district attorney, in fact, making the defendant his own witness on behalf of the prosecution. The question is, Was this course of proceeding regular and proper under the law ?

Section 13, article 1, of the constitution declares that no person shall “ be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” There is, therefore, no power in the court to compel a defendant in a criminal case to take the stand ; and it has been held that the failure of the defendant to testify in the case is not a circumstance from which any unfavorable inference can be drawn against him; and the provision of the statute is to the same effect.

But by section 1323 of the Penal Code, it is provided that “ a defendant in a criminal action or proceeding cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself; but if he offer himself as a witness, he may be cross-examined by the counsel for the people as to all matters about which he was examined in chief. His neglect or refusal to be a witness cannot in any manner prejudice him, nor be used against him on the trial or proceeding.” It is only under and by virtue of the foregoing provision of the Penal Code that a defendant in a criminal prosecution can be a witness at all; and when he is called on his own behalf and examined respecting a particular fact or matter in the case, the right of cross-examination is confined to the fact or matter testified to on the examination-in-chief. Such is the express language of the statute; and when the court, as it did in the case at bar, allowed the prosecution to make the defendant a general witness in its behalf, it invaded a right secured to the defendant not only by the statute but by the constitution.

For this error the judgment and order are reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

McKinstry, J., Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

MORRISON, C. J.

The defendant was charged, in an information filed by the district attorney of San Francisco, with the embezzlement of a certain sum of money, to wit, $1000, the same being the property of the state, and on the trial he was called and examined as a witness on his own behalf. On the examination in chief his testimony was directed and confined to the alleged embezzlement of the particular sum of money mentioned in the information, but on the cross-examination he was [603]*603examined generally as a witness in the case. This course of proceeding was objected to very frequently by his attorney, but the objections were as often overruled by the court, and the examination was allowed to be as general as could have been made of any other witness in the case; the district attorney, in fact, making the defendant his own witness on behalf of the prosecution. The question is, Was this course of proceeding regular and proper under the law ?

Section 13, article 1, of the constitution declares that no person shall “ be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” There is, therefore, no power in the court to compel a defendant in a criminal case to take the stand ; and it has been held that the failure of the defendant to testify in the case is not a circumstance from which any unfavorable inference can be drawn against him; and the provision of the statute is to the same effect.

But by section 1323 of the Penal Code, it is provided that “ a defendant in a criminal action or proceeding cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself; but if he offer himself as a witness, he may be cross-examined by the counsel for the people as to all matters about which he was examined in chief. His neglect or refusal to be a witness cannot in any manner prejudice him, nor be used against him on the trial or proceeding.” It is only under and by virtue of the foregoing provision of the Penal Code that a defendant in a criminal prosecution can be a witness at all; and when he is called on his own behalf and examined respecting a particular fact or matter in the case, the right of cross-examination is confined to the fact or matter testified to on the examination-in-chief. Such is the express language of the statute; and when the court, as it did in the case at bar, allowed the prosecution to make the defendant a general witness in its behalf, it invaded a right secured to the defendant not only by the statute but by the constitution.

For this error the judgment and order are reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

McKinstry, J., Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 P. 695, 66 Cal. 602, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-obrien-cal-1885.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack