Faulke

People v. Faulke

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 893·96 Cal. 17·30 P. 837
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 25, 1892No. 20903California989 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

—The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, and has appealed from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial. In the bill of exceptions there is assigned as error certain remarks claimed to have been made by the district attorney in his closing argument to the jury, outside of the evidence in the case, and prejudicial to the defendant, but as the bill of exceptions does not show, other than by these specifications, that the district attorney did, in fact, make such remarks, we cannot consider the inatter. Specifications of error are the act of the attorney, annexed to a bill of exceptions after the trial, and are for the purpose of pointing out the particulars in which errors were com *19 mitted at the trial. The matters to which such specifications point must be found in the substantive portion of the bill of exceptions; otherwise they cannot be considered.

After the testimony had closed, and while the district attorney was making his closing argument to the jury, he made a statement respecting certain evidence, which was disputed by the attorney for the defendant, who thereupon requested the court to direct the stenographer to read the testimony of the witness in that…

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.