People v. Smith

California Supreme Court

People v. Smith

33 P. 58, 98 Cal. 218, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 892

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 5, 1893

Docket20977

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 33 P. 58 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 33 P. 58, 98 Cal. 218, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 892 (Cal. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

De Haven, J.

The defendant and four other persons were jointly indicted and charged with the murder of one Robert Allen, alleged to have been committed in the county of Sacramento, in the month of May, 1891. The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and from this judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial he has appealed to this court.

The only evidence in the record before us which tends in any degree to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime of which he has been convicted is the testimony of his co-defendants, Gordan and Casey, and whose testimony, if true, shows them to have been his accomplices. This evidence, being uncorroborated, is not sufficient to sustain the verdict in this case. This is the explicit declaration of section 1111 of the Penal Code, which declares: “A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof.” It was held in People v. Thompson, 50 Cal. 480, that where the evidence relied upon as corroborative of that of the accomplice was only such as to raise a suspicion of [219]*219the guilt of a defendant, it was not sufficient; but this case is still weaker upon its facts. There is here absolutely no evidence whatever, aside from that of the accomplice, upon which to found even a well-grounded suspicion of the guilt of defendant.

Judgment and order reversed.

Fitzgerald, J., McFarland, J., Beatty, O. J., Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

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

De Haven, J.

The defendant and four other persons were jointly indicted and charged with the murder of one Robert Allen, alleged to have been committed in the county of Sacramento, in the month of May, 1891. The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and from this judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial he has appealed to this court.

The only evidence in the record before us which tends in any degree to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime of which he has been convicted is the testimony of his co-defendants, Gordan and Casey, and whose testimony, if true, shows them to have been his accomplices. This evidence, being uncorroborated, is not sufficient to sustain the verdict in this case. This is the explicit declaration of section 1111 of the Penal Code, which declares: “A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof.” It was held in People v. Thompson, 50 Cal. 480, that where the evidence relied upon as corroborative of that of the accomplice was only such as to raise a suspicion of [219]*219the guilt of a defendant, it was not sufficient; but this case is still weaker upon its facts. There is here absolutely no evidence whatever, aside from that of the accomplice, upon which to found even a well-grounded suspicion of the guilt of defendant.

Judgment and order reversed.

Fitzgerald, J., McFarland, J., Beatty, O. J., Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 P. 58, 98 Cal. 218, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-cal-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack