People v. Smith

Decided February 20, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-02-20

<p>Criminal Law—Homicide — Self-defense—Wound of Defendant— Expert Evidence — Position of Defendant when Shot — Question for Jury. —Upon the trial of a defendant charged with murder, where the defendant contended that he acted in self-defense, and did not shoot until after he himself was wounded, and the position of his wound was shown and also the course taken by the bullet, the question as to his position at the time he was shot is not one in relation to which the opinion of an expert can be properly received, but is for the jury to determine.</p> <p>Id. — Appeal — Prejudicial Error — Presumption. — An error in the admission of evidence must be presumed prejudicial, where it cannot be said with certainty that the incompetent evidence did not have any influence upon the minds of the jury in rendering their verdict.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-02-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 1961

8 state decisions

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 →

Garoutte, J., dissenting.

¶1I dissent.

¶2While the authorities cited by Mr. Justice De Haven beyond question determine that the testimony of Dr. Hayden was incompetent, still I am unable to see how the defendant was prejudiced thereby. The theory of the prosecution at the trial was, that the defendant had his back turned toward the deceased at the time he received the wound in the arm. The theory of the defense was, that the defendant was standing with his side to the deceased, and his left arm raised to a certain angle, at the time he received the wound. The doctor, as an expert, testified that the defendant could have been in either one of those two positions at the time he received the wound; consequently, I do not perceive how the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony.