People v. Roberson
| Decision Date | 29 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3496 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Ira ROBERSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gregory Stout, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Tried upon an indictment charging sale of narcotics, defendant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to prison. He appeals.
The prosecution charges that appellant sold heroin to James Shepherd, a Hayward policeman employed for five weeks in the spring of 1957 as an undercover agent for the State Bureau of Narcotics. The only evidence of the sale of narcotics by appellant is found in Shepherd's testimony that he bought heroin from appellant. Appellant flatly denied this sale and on that issue the jury had to resolve the question of credibility between those two witnesses and those two witnesses alone.
To support circumstantially his denial of sale to Shepherd appellant testified that he knew that Shepherd was a police officer. To corroborate this state of mind he produced Pitman and sought to prove that Pitman had told appellant that Pitman had heard that Shepherd was a police officer. The refusal of the trial court to allow this testimony was error. The applicable rule is stated in VI Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., sec. 1789, p. 235:
'Whenever an utterance is offered to evidence the state of mind which ensued in another person in consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that no assertive or testimonial use is sought to be made, of it, and the utterance is therefore admissible, so far as the Hearsay rule is concerned.' (Emphasis the author's.)
This rule is well settled in California. Swan v. Thompson, 124 Cal. 193, 197, 56 P. 878; Smith v. Whittier, 95 Cal. 279, 290-294, 30 P. 529; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 601-602, 22 P. 266, 5 L.R.A. 498; People v. King, 140 Cal.App.2d 1, 4-5, 294 P.2d 972; Aitken v. White, 93 Cal.App.2d 134, 145, 208 P.2d 788; cf. Werner v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 611, 621, 150 P.2d 892.
Appellant further argues that the cross-examination of his character witness was improper. The character witness, appellant's former employer, testified only to appellant's reputation for truth and veracity. On cross-examination, the witness was examined over objection about appellant's narcotic and petty theft convictions. The rule is that a character witness can be asked only about specific misconduct inconsistent with the trait as to which he testified on direct. People v. Tucker, 164 Cal.App.2d 624, 331 P.2d 160; People v. Logan, 41 Cal.2d 279, 260 P.2d 20. The crimes inquired about are not inconsistent with truth and veracity. It was error to permit cross-examination of appellant's character witness in this fashion. People v. Tucker, supra, 164 Cal.App.2d 624, 331 P.2d 160.
When the case depends on a determination of whether one prosecution witness or the defendant is to be believed by the jury, one error which deprives the defendant of evidence which circumstantially supports the defendant's testimony and another error which tends erroneously to impeach him cannot be said not to be prejudicial.
At the time of appellant's conviction, Health and Safety Code, section 11713 provided that punishment for sale of narcotics carried a longer minimum term of imprisonment if a prior conviction 'of any offense described in this division' were charged and found true or admitted. After filing of the indictment, but before plea, it was amended by the district attorney to allege appellant's prior conviction of violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11721, which although a misdemeanor, is an offense described in the same division of that code which contains section 11713. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Duran
...the utterance is therefore admissible, so far as the Hearsay rule is concerned.' (Emphasis the author's.)' (People v. Roberson (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 431, 334 P.2d 666, 667.) It was error, accordingly, to reject on hearsay grounds defendant's offer of the warnings in an attempt to lend ......
-
People v. Hill
...defendant's state of mind and conduct. Such extrajudicial statements are not hearsay. (Evid.Code, § 1200; People v. Roberson (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 431, 334 P.2d 666; 1 Jefferson, Cal.Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) § 1.4, illus. 2, p. 58.) Respondent does not dispute that the proffere......
-
People v. Marsh
...must be inconsistent with the character traits attested to on direct (McCormick, Evidence (1954) p. 335, fn. 14). In People v.Roberson, 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 431, 334 P.2d 666, it was held that to examine a witness who testified to the defendant's reputation for truth and veracity, about defe......
-
People v. Redmond, Cr. 19046
...testimony and another error which tends erroneously to impeach him cannot be said not to be prejudicial." (People v. Roberson (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 432, 334 P.2d 666, emphasis in original.) The above errors clearly resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
...from Mormon Church on moral grounds to rebut D's character for truth, honesty, and integrity); People v. Roberson (1st Dist.1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 431-32 (D's character witness could not be cross-examined about D's drug or petty-theft convictions to rebut D's character for truth and vera......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. Robbie, 92 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479 (1st Dist. 2001)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(2)(f); Ch. 4-A, §6; §6.1.3 People v. Roberson, 167 Cal. App. 2d 429, 334 P.2d 666 (1st Dist. 1959)—Ch. 4-A, §3.2.2(1) People v. Roberto V., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804 (2d Dist. 2001)—Ch......