Middleton

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of murder.

The first objection urged is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that “a witness false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.” It is true that a similar instruction was criticised in the case of People v. Plyler, 121 Cal. 160 [ 53 Pac. 553 ], However, in a later decision, our supreme court, after discussing the Plyler case, said: “But nowhere has it been decided, nor indeed could it with reason be held, that it is error for the court to instruct in the language of our written law. This is substantially what the court here did, and so, while the instruction cannot be commended as a full or clear exposition of the meaning of the section of the code, still it cannot be said that it was error for the court in giving the law to have conformed to the language of the code, and to have omitted what that code itself omits.” (People v. Dobbins, 138 Cal. 694, 698 [ 72 Pac. 339, 341 ]. See, also, People v. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 226, 238 [ 10 Pac. 502 ].) The objection urged by the appellant to the instruction above set forth is that the jury would be compelled under its language to…