court admitted into evidence a sound motion picture showing defendants reenacting the crime and admitting that they had committed the crime in the manner depicted
How later courts described this case
- court admitted into evidence a sound motion picture showing defendants reenacting the crime and admitting that they had committed the crime in the manner depicted
- sound pictures of re-enactment by defendants of a crime
- voluntary reenactment by accused
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 1101 (1997)
Dabb is inapposite; it involved the admissibility of motion picture reenactments at a criminal trial, not their availability for discovery purposes.
The opinion
CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance because I am convinced from an examination of the record that there can be no doubt as to the guilt of the defendants. I do not, however, agree with the statement in the majority opinion that so far as California is concerned the rule is that: “A defendant in a criminal action cannot be required to defend himself against the charge of any crime other than that for which he is on trial, but this rule does not exclude evidence which incidentally discloses the commission of another offense.”
I am convinced that the last-quoted statement is no longer the law in California and that the rule is now that evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is admissable regardless of its relevancy to the offense for which he is being tried. This conclusion is clearly demonstrated by the holdings in recent decisions of this Court including the one in the case at bar. (See People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306 [ 169 P.2d 924 ]; People v. Westek, 31 Cal. 2d 469 [ 190 P.2d 9 ].) In the face of these decisions the above-quoted statement has all of the characteristics of “a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”