Skip to content

People v. Cesena

THE PEOPLE v. MARCOS CESENA

People v. Cesena, 27 P. 300 (Cal. 1891)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 30, 1891
Docket: No. 20749
Judges: Temple
Citations: 27 P. 30090 Cal. 3811891 Cal. LEXIS 945

Cited by 5

Headnotes

Criminal Law — Assault to Rape — Evidence — Children as Witnesses — Weight op Testimony—Discrepancies — Corroboration.—The fact that there were discrepancies in the statements of children, who were witnesses against a defendant convicted, of an assault with intent to commit rape, does not warrant a reversal of the judgment, where the discrepancies are such as might be expected from their tender age, and there is other evidence to corroborate their account, including the defendant’s own testimony. Id. — Province op Jury—Credibility op Witnesses.—Where the value and weight of evidence depend upon the credibility of the witnesses, it is a matter peculiarly for the jury to determine. New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Discretion — Cumulative and Conflicting Evidence — Evidence Known before Trial. — The granting or denying of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its refusal to grant it will not be reversed, where the evidence is all cumulative or simply contradictory of the testimony of the prosecution, and counter-affidavits show that unless the testimony is false the defendant must have known of it and of the witness before the trial. Id. — Want of Diligence — Counter-affidavits.—Upon a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, counter-affidavits may be used to show that due diligence has not been used.

Summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County, and from an order denying a uew trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Temple

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

Temple, C.

— The defendant, having been convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, appeals from the judgment and an order refusing him a new trial.

He does not complain of any ruling at the trial, nor does he deny that there is some evidence tending to prove the charge against him; but he contends that the testimony of the main witnesses against him is contradictory, and so improbable that they are not to be believed; that it furnishes proof of a conspiracy, and that the charge is a pure fabrication.

But it does not strike us in that way. The discrepancies in the statements of the children are not more than should be expected from their tender age. Then there is much" to corroborate their account. Indeed, the testimony of the defendant himself, carefully analyzed, affords many items strongly confirming their story. The statements as to the time when Cesena left the saloon constituted only conflicting testimony, and was properly left to the jury.

We do not attribute very much importance to the testimony as to time. It is easy to be mistaken in such matters. And then the value of the evidence depends largely upon the credibility of the witnesses,—a matter peculiarly for the jury.

The newly discovered evidence is all cumulative, or simply contradictory of the testimony of the people, and the counter-affidavits show that if the story be nota pure fabrication, the defendant must have known of it and of the witness. Counter-affidavits may be used on such motion to show that due diligence has not been used.

Such applications are addressed to the discretion of *384 the trial court, and the presumption is, that the discretion was properly used.

We see no reason for interfering with the action of the court in this case, whether its decision were based upon lack of due diligence or a belief that the proposed evidence would not render a different result probable though a new trial were had.

We think the judgment and order should be affirmed.

Belcher, C., and Vanclief, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Howey v. State1913 OK CR 129, 132 P. 499
People v. Mitchell215 P. 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
People v. Spady222 P.2d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
People v. Ah Lung83 P. 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
People v. Rosado16 P.R. 412 (1910)

Most recent

People v. Spady222 P.2d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
People v. Mitchell215 P. 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
Howey v. State1913 OK CR 129, 132 P. 499
People v. Rosado16 P.R. 412 (1910)
People v. Ah Lung83 P. 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)

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.