Opinion

People v. Brown

  • 62 Cal. App. 96
  • 216 P. 411
  • 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 296
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
May 4, 1923
Status
Published
On the bench
Finlayson
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.2%

The opinion

THE COURT.

In denying the petition for rehearing, although this point is not urged in the petition, we do not wish to be understood as approving that portion of the opinion dealing with the last instruction set forth in the opinion with reference to the defendant's testimony. It is unnecessary to determine in this case whether the defendant was entitled to an instruction that “When a defendant does take the stand he has a right to testify about any portion of his case, and no prejudice should be raised in the jurors’ minds against him because he does not testify about all instances concerning his case.” The instruction was properly refused because it infringes upon the province of the jury in the last clause reading as follows: “When a defendant takes the stand his testimony is not to be distrusted merely because he is the defendant; on the contrary, his testimony is to be weighed by you in the same light as the testimony of any other witness in the case.” (People v. Winters, 125 Cal. 325, 330 [ 57 Pac. 1067 ], and other cases cited in the concluding paragraph of the opinion of the district court of appeal. See, also, 8 Cal. Jur., sec. 394, p. 365, and cases cited.)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.