Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Cal. 354

People v. Hicks

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1879

California Supreme Court · decided 1879-07-01

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one William Page, and convicted of murder in the second degree. The appeal from the order denying a new trial having been dismissed at the argument of the cause, the case was considered upon the judgment roll. The material facts appear in the opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1947

7 state decisions

2018791880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

¶1At the trial, the Court instructed the jury in the words of subd. 3 of sec. 2061 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that “ a witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others.” But the counsel for the defendant asked the Court to charge the jury “ that if they believed any witness had, upon the stand, willfully sworn falsely in respect to any matter material to the issue on trial, that they should disregard his testimony altogether.” The Court refused to give the instruction, and this refusal is relied upon as error.

¶2In People v. Sprague, post, p. 491, we held that the correct interpretation of subd. 3 of sec. 2061 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, that a witness willfully false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others. Assuming this to be the correct construction, the effect of this provision is that if a witness is willfully false in one portion of his testimony he “ is to be distrusted in others ”; and not that his whole testimony is to be absolutely rejected. If the rule was otherwise at common law, the Code has changed it.

¶3The instruction asked was correctly refused.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express any opinion.

/53/cal/354 · .json · Public domain