People v. Barker

THE PEOPLE v. THOMAS BARKER

People v. Barker, 46 P. 601 (Cal. 1896)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 26, 1896
Docket: No. Crim. No. 162
Judges: Fleet
Citations: 46 P. 601114 Cal. 6171896 Cal. LEXIS 952

Headnotes

Criminal Law—Robbery—Evidence—Corroboration of Accomplice. The testimony of an accomplice to a robbery committed by the defendant is sufficiently corroborated by other proof tending to identify defendant as one of the assailants, and that he was seen in the company of the accomplice, in the near vicinity of the scene of the robbery a very few minutes prior to the commission- of the offense. Id.—Sufficiency of Corroborating Evidence.—Evidence tending, independently of that of the accomplice, to connect defendant with the commission of the offense is all that is required, even though if it stood alone it would be entitled to but little weight; nor need it extend to every fact and detail covered by the statements of the accomplice. Id.—Question for Jury.—The strength or credibility of the corroborating evidence is for the jury.

Summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County and from an order denying a new trial. John L. Campbell, Judge. The instruction referred to in the second subdivision of the opinion is as follows: “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. But although more is required by way of corroboration than to raise a mere suspicion, yet the corroborating evidence is sufficient if it of itself tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, although it is slight, and entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration.” Further 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 — Fleet

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

Van Fleet, J.

Defendant was convicted of robbery and appeals from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial.

1. It was objected that there was no evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime, O other than the uncorroborated statements of an accomplice. We regard the evidence as quite sufficient to satisfy the statute as to the degree of corroboration required. The testimony of Leary, the prosecuting witness, while not positive on the point, nevertheless tended directly to identify defendant as one of his assailants; while that of several other witnesses placed defendant in the company of his accomplice, in the near vicinity of the scene of the robbery, at a very few minutes prior to the commission of the offense. This was evidence tending, independently of that of the accomplice, to connect defendant with the commission of the offense; and that is all that is required. The strength or credibility *620 of the corroborating evidence is for the jury. It “ need not be strong; it is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, though if it stood alone it would be entitled to but little weight.” (People v. McLean, 84 Cal. 480 .) Nor need it extend to every fact and detail covered by the statements of the accomplice. (People v. Kunz, 73 Cal. 313 ; People v. cloonan, 50 Cal. 449 .)

2. The instruction as to the degree of corroboration required, which is objected to, is in fall accord with the principles above stated, and correctly states the law.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

People v. Trujillo194 P.2d 681 (Cal. 1948)
People v. Robbins154 P. 317 (Cal. 1915) · Dissent
People v. Follette240 P. 502 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
People v. Cowan101 P.2d 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
People v. Kennedy69 P.2d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
State v. Bolton212 P. 504 (Mont. 1922)

Most recent

People v. Trujillo194 P.2d 681 (Cal. 1948)
People v. Cowan101 P.2d 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
People v. Kennedy69 P.2d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
People v. Martinez66 P.2d 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
State v. Jones26 P.2d 341 (Mont. 1933)
People v. Norris24 P.2d 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

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 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	People v. McLean, 24 P. 32 (Cal. 1890)	73
	People v. Cloonan, 50 Cal. 449 (1875)	15
	People v. Kunz, 14 P. 836 (Cal. 1887)	13

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list