People v. Simons

California Court of Appeal

People v. Simons

145 P. 145, 25 Cal. App. 723, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 195

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 10, 1914

DocketCrim. No. 538.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 145 P. 145 (People v. Simons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Simons, 145 P. 145, 25 Cal. App. 723, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

In this case an appeal is taken from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The points made in support of the appeal are that certain evidence introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of showing the motive of the defendant for the commission of the crime was too remote; that the *724 district attorney was guilty of misconduct in his argument to the jury; and that too wide a latitude was allowed in the cross-examination of the defendant. Remoteness may affect the weight of evidence; but it does not ordinarily affect its admissibility.

We are satisfied that the evidence complained of was admissible under the general rule that motive may be shown where there is any doubt about the identity of the perpetrator of the offense; or that motive may he shown generally, although not necessary to be shown in every ease. In the present case, if there was a likelihood that the complaining witness was in any way an obstacle to the sexual gratification of the defendant, that might be a motive for assaulting the complaining witness with the intent to murder him. If that be so, the testimony assigned as erroneously admitted was proper for the purpose of showing motive, and also for the purpose of clearing up any doubt there might have been as to the identification of the person guilty of the assault.

We do not think there was any misconduct on the part of the district attorney sufficient to warrant particular mention. As to the cross-examination of the defendant, we are satisfied it was legitimate and within the rule.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on December 10, 1914, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal was denied by the supreme court on January 7, 1915.

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

THE COURT.

In this case an appeal is taken from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The points made in support of the appeal are that certain evidence introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of showing the motive of the defendant for the commission of the crime was too remote; that the *724 district attorney was guilty of misconduct in his argument to the jury; and that too wide a latitude was allowed in the cross-examination of the defendant. Remoteness may affect the weight of evidence; but it does not ordinarily affect its admissibility.

We are satisfied that the evidence complained of was admissible under the general rule that motive may be shown where there is any doubt about the identity of the perpetrator of the offense; or that motive may he shown generally, although not necessary to be shown in every ease. In the present case, if there was a likelihood that the complaining witness was in any way an obstacle to the sexual gratification of the defendant, that might be a motive for assaulting the complaining witness with the intent to murder him. If that be so, the testimony assigned as erroneously admitted was proper for the purpose of showing motive, and also for the purpose of clearing up any doubt there might have been as to the identification of the person guilty of the assault.

We do not think there was any misconduct on the part of the district attorney sufficient to warrant particular mention. As to the cross-examination of the defendant, we are satisfied it was legitimate and within the rule.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on December 10, 1914, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal was denied by the supreme court on January 7, 1915.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 P. 145, 25 Cal. App. 723, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simons-calctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack