Mickalian

People v. Mickalian

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 2d 11·1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1126·249 P.2d 358
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 1952Crim 4878California1,054 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fox, J.

Defendant was convicted .by a jury of having sold ,to Deputy Sheriff Grimes 15 marijuana cigarettes in violation .of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. He appeals from the ensuing judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant bases his appeal upon the alleged misconduct of the prosecuting attorney. The particular incident occurred during: the cross-examination of defendant on surrebuttal. Defendant had testified that Grimes had frequently importuned him over a period of time to get some marijuana for him. Defendant further testified ■ that was the only subject the officer ever discussed with him. The deputy district attorney then propounded this question: “Now, isn’t it a fact that most of your conversation with this officer had to do with the murder of Davidian?” Defense counsel objected to the question on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial and improper cross-examination, cited it as misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, and asked the court to, instruct the jury to disregard the question. The court sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the question and “to treat it as though you had not heard it.”

It…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.