Haydon

People v. Haydon

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 543·1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 407·123 P. 1102
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1912Crim. No. 167.California21,303 words

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing

The petition of defendant for a rehearing of this cause in the supreme court is denied.

The opinion of the district court of appeal contains the following passage concerning section 4%, article YI, recently added to the constitution:

This court regards this statement as wholly unnecessary to the decision of the case. The denial of the petition for a rehearing is not to be understood as an indication of approval or disapproval of said statement by the supreme court.

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

There are, generally speaking, but two points upon which reliance is based for a reversal of the judgment and order, from which the defendant, convicted of murder of the second degree, prosecutes the appeal to this court, viz.: 1. That the evidence does not justify and support the verdict; 2. That the court committed a series of serious and prejudicial errors in the allowance and disallowance of answers to certain questions propounded to the witnesses.

The defendant was prosecuted for the crime of murder on an information, filed in the superior court in and for the county of Trinity, by the district attorney of said county, it being therein alleged that he unlawfully and with malice aforethought destroyed the life of one Morris H. Norgard.

The only witness to the homicide, other than the defendant himself, was a brother of the deceased, Cervera Norgard, a lad of a little less than thirteen years of age at the time of the homicide. His, therefore, was the only direct testimony received on behalf of the people. The circumstances of the killing as detailed by him do not accord, as might naturally be expected, with the circumstances of the homicide as related by the defendant, and…

Lead Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 545 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 546 There are, generally speaking, but two points upon which reliance is based for a reversal of the judgment and order, from which the defendant, convicted of murder of the second degree, prosecutes the appeal to this court, viz.: 1. That the evidence does not justify and support the verdict; 2. That the court committed a series of serious and prejudicial errors in the allowance and disallowance of answers to certain questions propounded to the witnesses. The defendant was prosecuted for the crime of murder on an information, filed in the superior court in and for the county of Trinity, by the district attorney of said county, it being therein alleged that he unlawfully and with malice aforethought destroyed the life of one Morris H. Norgard. The only witness to the homicide, other than the defendant himself, was a brother of the deceased, Cervera Norgard, a lad of a little less than thirteen years of…

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.