gno.law

People v. Martini

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 443. · 1913-04-23 · Published · 132 P. 1069 · 21 Cal. App. 743 · 1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 351

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DOMINGO MARTINI, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
Trial judge
J. E. Barber
Outcome
affirmed — order are affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
Hall (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Hall

HALL, J.

Appellant was charged with grand larceny, with two prior convictions—one of burglary of the second degree, and one of attempt to commit burglary of the second degree. Upon arraignment he pleaded “Not guilty” to the charge of grand larceny, but admitted the charges of prior convictions to be true. He was convicted of grand larceny.

The only point urged for a reversal is that the court erred in permitting the district attorney, upon cross-examination of defendant (who was a witness in his own behalf), to ask defendant as to having suffered prior convictions for felony.

But where a defendant, though admitting the charge of prior conviction upon arraignment, becomes a witness in his own behalf, he may be asked if he has ever been convicted of a felony. Such conviction may be proved as affecting his ered *744 ibility as a witness.

(People v. Arnold, 116 Cal. 682, [48 Pac. 803];

People v. Meyer, 75 Cal. 383, [17 Pac. 431];

People v. Chin Mook Sow, 51 Cal. 597.)

The appeal is entirely without merit, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

Kerrigan, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by