People v. Boscovitch
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Tuolumne County. 4 Indictment for robbery. After the jury were empanneled, on motion of the District Attorney, the defendant’s witnesses were sworn and put under the rule excluding them from the Court room, and from the hearing of the other witnesses.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Tuolumne County. 4 Indictment for robbery. After the jury were empanneled, on motion of the District Attorney, the defendant’s witnesses were sworn and put under the rule excluding them from the Court room, and from the hearing of the other witnesses. The evidence for the People being closed, defendant called two of his witnesses who had thus been ordered to exclude themselves, and it appearing to the Court that they had violated the order, and had been present in the Court room, and heard a portion of the testimony of other witnesses, on objection of the…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
The Attorney General very properly confesses error in the present case. If the witnesses offered disregarded the rule of the Court excluding their presence, until called, during the progress of the trial, the Court might have punished them as for a contempt. The fact constituted no ground for the exclusion of their testimony. The defendant could not enforce the rule, and to deprive him of the benefit of their testimony for its disobedience, without fault on his part, was manifestly unjust and illegal.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
2Cited by15 opinions
- Loose v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- People v. RussellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- State v. WorthenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Germ v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Mintzer v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.