People v. Ah Fat
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. The defendant was indicted jointly with Ah Wee and Ah Hoy, for the murder of Ah Quong. The indictment charged the three as principals. The trial was called in October, 1873, and the defendant moved for a continuance on the ground of the absence of T. W. Gilmer, a witness who had testified at a former trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. The defendant was indicted jointly with Ah Wee and Ah Hoy, for the murder of Ah Quong. The indictment charged the three as principals. The trial was called in October, 1873, and the defendant moved for a continuance on the ground of the absence of T. W. Gilmer, a witness who had testified at a former trial. The affidavit for a continuance did not state what Gilmer could testify to, but referred to the reporter’s notes of the testimony given by Gilmer on the former trial. The testimony had been taken down by an…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Niles, J.:
1. The affidavit for continuance on the ground of the absence of the witness Gilmer was defective in several particulars. It does not distinctly state the facts to which the absent witness would testify. If a mere reference to the reporter’s notes of Gilmer’s testimony could be received as supplying the place of such statement in the affidavit, this testimony clearly shows that a number of other persons were present and witnessed the occurrences to which the witness deposed. We must presume that it was apparent to the Court that the testimony of these persons was…
2Cited by16 opinions
- People v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- United States v. Alan James DringCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- People v. OrcallesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- People v. SellasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Hopkins v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.