TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Ehring

THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM EHRING

People v. Ehring, 3 P. 606 (Cal. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 1, 1884
Docket
No. 10,940
Judges
Sharpstein
Citations
3 P. 60665 Cal. 1351884 Cal. LEXIS 472
Syllabus
Criminal Law — Evidence—Bes Gestsi—Bobbeby.—Defendant was charged with robbery. The prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of a statement made by the person alleged to have been robbed, that he had been “knocked down and robbed.” The statement did not show of what he had been robbed, or who had knocked him down and robbed him, and was made some time after the occurrence, and not in the presence of the defendant. The person alleged to have been robbed testified that he thought he had been knocked down and that his watch had been taken from him, but was not certain. He did not state when, where, or by whom the alleged robbery was committed. Selá, that the admission of the evidence as to the statement was erroneous.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sharpstein

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

Sharpstein, J.

—The court erred in admitting evidence of a statement made by Pinkston, the person alleged to have been robbed by the defendant, to the witness Dallas. The statement *136 was not made in the presence of the defendant, and there is nothing in the record which shows that it was anything more than a mere narrative of a past occurrence. It was an isolated conversation held between Pinkston and the witness, some time after the events narrated had transpired, but how long after does not appear. Pinkston, when on the witness stand, did not attempt to state when, where, or by whom the alleged robbery was committed.

He testified that he had a watch at 11 A. M., and between 1 and 2 p. m. he missed it. He thought that he had been knocked down, and that the watch had been taken from him without his consent. But of that he was not positive. This was what he stated when under oath. The prosecution was permitted to prove that, when not u/nder oath, he had positively stated he had been “knocked down and robbed.” It does not appear that he then stated what he had been robbed of, or who had knocked him down and robbed him.

This illustrates very clearly the objection to the admission of such evidence. Judges and law-writers have differed as to when statements must be made in order to be admissible in evidence as part of the res gestee. But so far as we are advised, there is no reported case in which such evidence has ever been admitted under circumstances at all similar to those under which it was admitted in this case.

Judgment and order reversed.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Territory of Montana v. Clayton8 Mont. 1 (1888)

Most recent

  1. Territory of Montana v. Clayton8 Mont. 1 (1888)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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