TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Qurise

THE PEOPLE v. M. QURISE

People v. Qurise, 59 Cal. 343 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1881
Docket
No. 10,599
Citations
59 Cal. 343
Headnotes
Bepobter’s Notes, Admissibility op.—On the trial the prosecution, after proving the death of one L., offered in evidence the reporter’s notes of his evidence given on a former trial of the case, and the same were admitted. Held: This was error.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Hewell, J. The following statement appears in the bill of exceptions: “ Frank Repose, called as a witness for the prosecution, testified in substance: ‘I know Imerson Luke; I know that he is dead; I was there when he got shot.’ The District Attorney then said: ‘ I now offer in evidence the testimony of Imerson Luke, given in the previous trial and certified to by the reporter.’ The defense objected to said evidence upon the ground, among others, ‘ that it is not proven nor shown that the offense for which the defendant was on trial at the time the testimony was taken was the same, or substantially the same, as that for which the defendant is now on trial.’ The prosecution then called C. A. Sumner (official short-hand reporter of the Court), as a witness for the prosecution, to show the identity of the offenses, who testified in substance as follows : I remember the trial of the case of The People v. M. Qurise in this Court in June last. That is the testimony of Imerson Luke on that trial. (Refers to the transcript offered in evidence.) That is all the testimony, direct and cross-examination. The defendant was on trial upon an information similar to that—don’t know that that is the information (referring to information shown to witness). The information was then submitted to the Court. It charged the defendant with larceny and embezzlement of a horse, saddle, and bridle from I. Luke, the property of said Luke, in the County of Stanislaus, on the twenty-fourth of November, 1879. The Court then overruled the objection and allowed the testimony, to which ruling then and there the defendant duly excepted, and the District Attorney proceeded to read the same, which is in substance as follows.” (Here follows the testimony of Imerson Luke.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court:

On the trial of this case the prosecution offered in evidence the short-hand reporter’s notes of the evidence given by one Luke on a former trial of the case. The evidence was objected to by defendant’s counsel, the objection was overruled, and the notes were read in evidence. This was error. (People v. Chung Ah Chue, 57 Cal. 567 .)

Judgment and order reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 218932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Gardner32 P. 880 (Cal. 1893)
  2. People v. Gordon33 P. 901 (Cal. 1893)

Most recent

  1. People v. Gordon33 P. 901 (Cal. 1893)
  2. People v. Gardner32 P. 880 (Cal. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Chue, 57 Cal. 567 (1881) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list