People v. Hurlburt
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.
In a prosecution for a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code the trial court ruled that defense counsel could neither cross-examine the complaining witness nor introduce evidence on the question as to whether the witness had, in the past, made similar charges against other men, which charges the witness had admitted were false or were proved to be false. In our opinion such rulings were erroneous, and under the facts, prejudicial.
As is usual in such cases, the prosecution was forced to rely primarily on the testimony of the complaining witness to establish its case, while the defense, by…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- People v. PutnamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- People v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- People v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- People v. EvansMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Wedmore v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1957
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Hammer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2009
- Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- People v. BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. AndersonMontana Supreme Court · 1984
- Clinebell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1988
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.