Sullivan

People v. Sullivan

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 858·2 Cal. Unrep. 552·8 P. 520
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1885No. 20,091California891 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrison, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and adjudged to suffer imprisonment therefor the term of twenty-five years. On this appeal he makes the following points:

(1) The court erred in admitting the declaration of deceased. (2) The court erred in admitting the testimony of H. J. White, who claimed to be an expert, as to whether the wound had been inflicted with a dull or sharp instrument. (3) The court erred in refusing to give an instruction asked by the defendant, upon the hypothesis that his testimony was true.

1. The following is the testimony objected to under the first alleged error:

*553 “Counsel for the people asked the following questions, upon which the court made the ruling that follows: Question. Did he (deceased) say anything about sending for a doctor while in that condition ? ■ Answer. Yes; I will tell you. Q. Just state what he said about sending for a doctor. Mr. Hinds, Counsel for Defendant: We object to it on the ground that it is incompetent and not admissible as a dying declaration, or as a part of the res gestae. Mr. Harris (for the People) : We want to show that the deceased asked them if they had sent for a doctor, and…

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.