People v. Pou Orozco

55 P.R. 297
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedJuly 14, 1939
DocketNo. 7634
StatusPublished

This text of 55 P.R. 297 (People v. Pou Orozco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Pou Orozco, 55 P.R. 297 (prsupreme 1939).

Opinion

Mr. Justice De Jesús

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant was convicted of a crime of murder in the second degree and sentence to twelve years in prison. The evidence of the district attorney tends to show that on Octo[298]*298ber 12, 1936, the deceased, Domingo Rosa, was in front of a meat market in Humacao. He was begging the witness Severo Fonseca, an employee of said market who was at that time talking to the witness Agnedo Romero, to give him two cents to buy rnm. At that moment the accused arrived and without crossing any words, stabbed Rosa in the back with a knife, perforating the auricle and the diaphragm as a consequence of which he died a few moments later in a clinic-of that city. That upon being wounded the deceased turned toward the accused and said to him: “Paco you have-wounded me;” to which the latter answered: “That is in payment for what you did to me last night.” That the deceased who at the moment had an old valise with him, ran with it toward the meat market, fell to the ground and the accused went to the police station. On his way he found a cart of oranges from which he took one, peeled it with the homicidal weapon and continued with it on his way to the jjolice station. From the evidence of the district' attorney it appears that deceased was a drunkard and a bully of very bad reputation, that he did not work and spent his time begging for money to buy rum, being in the habit sometimes of assaulting whoever refused to give him money.

The accused tried to prove that he killed Domingo Rosa in self defense. That five or six years before, the deceased had wounded him; that the night before the murder he had tried to kill the accused and that that morning he was looking for him with a machete to kill him, going to the house of accused and inviting him to come out, to which the latter, closing his door, refused. That on that same day the accused had been told that deceased had said he was going to kill him. That he tried to find Corporal Soto to inform him of what was going on -with the deceased and that he did not find him in-his house; that he then went to the police station to look for said officer. That on his way he found a cart of oranges. That he bought one and picked the knife from the part and continued peeling the orange when about ten [299]*299steps further on be suddenly met Domingo Rosa. That the latter immediately gave him a slap in the face and at the same time tried to draw a weapon, the accused being unable to determined whether he tried to draw it from the valise or from his clothes. That it was at that moment when the accused wounded the deceased with the knife that he had taken from the cart of oranges.

The jury did not believe the evidence presented by the accused to establish self defense and the transcript of the evidence clearly shows that in doing so, the jury correctly decided the conflict in the evidence..

In support of his appeal, the accused assigns nine errors which we will state in considering them.

The first error states as follows:

“First. — The court erred in not permitting the witness Aguedo Romero López to be cross-examined after he had stated that he was a single man, in regard to whether or not he kept a woman, (page 26 T. E.) because with that question an attempt was being made to attack the credibility of the witness and to prove what his occupation was and to investigate whether he carried on relations with a loose woman.”

This alleged error refers to an incident which took place while the defense cross-examined Aguedo Romero, the first witness of the prosecution. The defense asked the witness if he was single or married. He answered that he was single. Immediately after this question he was asked: “Do you not keep a woman?” Before the witness could answer the district attorney objected and the judge upheld the objection. The defense then took the folio-wing exception:

“We take exception to the ruling of the court because we are trying to attack the credibility of the witness and prove his habits. ’ ’

The question objected to was evidently impertinent. The fact that the witness although single, was living illicitly with a woman can in no way affect his credibility, and assuming that he had answered negatively, the defense could not have presented evidence to impeach him because a witness may [300]*300not be asked á question which is immaterial or collateral to the issue in controversy to later1 impeach his testimony. See Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 4th edition, Sec. 429, page 876; Hardy v. State, 8 A.L.R. 1357, 1359; Johnson v. Palomba Co., 80 A.L.R. 441; Barlow Brothers Co. v. Parsons, 49 Atl. 205.

Furthermore, this Court has decided that it is not permissible to attack the credibility of a witness with evidence of acts more or less reprochable. People v. Alméstico, 18 P.R.R. 314. And in the case of Camacho v. Balasquide, 19 P.R.R. 564, it was said that to impeach the reputation and credibility of a witness no evidence may be admitted tending to show specific acts of depravation or immorality. Finally in the case of People v. R-amíres de Arellano, 25 P.R.R. 243, it was decided that on cross-examination, a witness may not be asked under pretext that his testimony is going to be impeached or preparation is being made for it, questions which do not affect his credibility and that the partjr who asks them has no right to make them manifest for other purposes. For the foregoing reasons we must conclude that the first assigned error does not exist.

The assignments of errors numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 refer to the conduct of deceased. We shall group and discus them jointly. They state as follows:

“2. The court erred in not permitting the defense to ask the following question to the witness Severo Fonseca: 'On some occasions, besides slapping the person who refused to comply with his wishes by giving him money, did he not also stab them?’
“3. The court erred in ordering the elimination from the record of the testimony of the accused stating that a scar that he had on his face had been made by the deceased Domingo Rosa about five or six years (sic). (Pages 86 and 87 T. of E.)
"4. The court erred in not permitting the accused to testify as to the conduct of deceased and as to specific acts carried out by him in regard to the accused, and in ordering the elimination of all the details testified to by the said accused. (Pages 95 and 96 T. of E.)
[301]*301“6. The court erred in not permitting the witness Benigno Soto to testify as to the complaints that he had filed against the deceased Domingo Rosa for the crime of aggravated assault and battery. (Page 115.)
“7. The court erred in not permitting the witness Félix Calzada to testify as to the reputation of the deceased Domingo Rosa, since he had had him in jail twenty-eight times.
“8. The court erred in not permitting that a record of the penal history of Domingo Rosa for the crimes of carrying weapons be presented in evidence. (Pages 134.)
“9.

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

Related

Johnson v. Charles William Palomba Co.
157 A. 902 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
People v. Forte
18 N.E.2d 31 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Hardy v. State
217 S.W. 939 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 P.R. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pou-orozco-prsupreme-1939.