# People v. Watson

> California Supreme Court · July 3, 1956 · 46 Cal. 2d 818

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631607

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PHILIP J. WATSON, Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 3, 1956
- **Citations:** 46 Cal. 2d 818; 299 P.2d 243; 1956 Cal. LEXIS 234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schauer
- **Judges:** Carter, Schauer, Spence
- **Cited by:** 7,438 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by People v. Gilman, 156 Cal. App. 3d 760 (1984).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 2
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631607

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that instructional error is not subject to reversal unless an examination of the entire record establishes reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome
- holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

## Opinion text

SCHAUER, J.,
Dissenting.—In the majority opinion it is recognized that “It is the right of a witness [italics added] to be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions, and ... to be examined only as to matters legal and pertinent to the issue.” (See Code Civ. Proe., §§2065, 2066.) When the “witness” is also the defendant on trial for his life or liberty, failure to accord him that specifically declared right takes on vastly greater import than where the victim of the misconduct is affected only as a witness.
The majority opinion also recognizes that “The challenged but admitted evidence was undoubtedly collateral and irrelevant to any issue in the case. The casting of aspersions on defendant’s reasons for wearing an Army uniform that he was entitled [apparently required] to wear, and offering evidence to show an attempt to get a discharge from the Army had no bearing on his motive or credibility in relation to the crime charged.” In other words, it is conceded that the object and effect of asking the improper questions was to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jurors.
Technical proof of guilt and effective persuasion of guilt may be quite different things. For proof of guilt to sustain the verdict on appellate review the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence which, while not wholly insufficient as a matter of law, is far from being overwhelming or even satisfyingly convincing as a matter of substance. Many of the suspicious circumstances are susceptible'of innocent construction. The finding of guilt rests heavily upon inferences drawn in some respects from objective facts and as to other elements from opinion evidence. Certainly, resolution of the conflicting inferences and of the ultimate fact is for the jury, but when the scales of proof are so delicately balanced it should be resolved by a jury which has heard relevant evidence and which has not been prejudiced and thereby persuaded by irrelevant matters. It seems rather clear to me that the natural result of the conceded error was a mis *839 carriage of justice—a verdict of guilty materially aided by other than relevant evidence and, hence, obtained by means other than those delimited by the standards of a fair trial.
For a more complete narration of the evidence, elaboration of the general unfair conduct of the trial, and a correct application of the pertinent rules of law, reference is made to the opinion prepared for the District Court of Appeal by Presiding Justice Peters and concurred in by Justices Bray and Fred B. Wood, Jr., reported at (Cal.App.) 288 P.2d 184 .
For the reasons therein and hereinabove indicated I conclude that there has been a miscarriage of justice and would reverse and remand for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631607. Public record. Not legal advice.