People v. MacEwing

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Abbey

    223 Cal.App.2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)

    [3] The weight of the corroborating evidence is a question of fact for the jury to determine. ( People v. Trujillo, 32 Cal.2d 105, 112 [ 194 P.2d 681].)" ( People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117, 123 [ 317 P.2d 82].) [4] The testimony of Peggy Bollard that she heard the two conversations, together with evidence of the installation of the monitoring device on a telephone pole on the Happennie property and the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Happennie and Walsh as to the contents of the intercepted conversations, was ample to establish the corpus delicti of the two offenses.

  2. People v. Darnold

    219 Cal.App.2d 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 7 times
    In People v. Darnold (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 561 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 369], multiple defendants were tried for various crimes, including conspiracy.

    Section 1111 of the Penal Code provides, in part, that the testimony of an accomplice must "be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." Rules with reference to such corroboration are stated in People v. Lyons, 50 Cal.2d 245, 257 [324 P.2d 516]; People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117, 123 [ 317 P.2d 82]. [2] Such corroborative evidence "is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth; it must tend to implicate the defendant. . . .

  3. People v. Sanchez

    191 Cal.App.2d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    Further, inasmuch as the fact that the words of consent were spoken by the accused was the very fact in issue, the words were clearly admissible, not as hearsay, but as original evidence. ( People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 317 P.2d 82].) [9] Appellant's main complaint in this connection seems to be that the officer's testimony must be corroborated in the face of his (defendant's) denial he spoke any words of consent. Such testimony requires no corroboration, and the trier of fact, if he believes it, may accept it as the truth.

  4. People v. Feigin

    174 Cal.App.2d 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 7 times
    In People v. Feigin, 174 Cal.App.2d 553 [ 345 P.2d 273], the abortee who did not speak or understand English was taken to the defendant by a male companion who testified to an arrangement with defendant for an abortion.

    It is clear to us that the testimony of Jeanne was corroborated in a manner to reasonably convince a trier of fact that she had testified to the truth, although there was no direct evidence corroborative of her testimony that defendant used instruments upon her. Jeanne's testimony having been corroborated in material respects by independent evidence was to be considered with all the other evidence in the case. ( People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 317 P.2d 82].) When thus considered, her testimony that defendant used instruments upon her for the purpose of producing an abortion was sufficient proof of that fact.

  5. People v. Wynkoop

    165 Cal.App.2d 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 15 times

    (Pen. Code, ยง 1111.) [1] Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the trier of fact that the witness who must be corroborated is telling the truth; it must be considered without the aid of the testimony which is to be corroborated, and is insufficient if it requires the interpretation and direction of such testimony in order to give it value. ( People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117, 123 [ 317 P.2d 82].) [2] Corroborating evidence need not be direct but may be circumstantial. It need not extend to all the elements of the offense, nor to every detail included in the testimony of the corroboratee, and it has been held that it is sufficient if it tends, in some slight degree, to implicate the accused.

  6. People v. Schiers

    160 Cal.App.2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 2 times

    Although it was error to give the instruction there was strong evidence of defendant's guilt and we are convinced that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. ( People v. Tuthill, 31 Cal.2d 92, 101-102 [ 187 P.2d 16]; People v. MacEwing, 155 Cal.App.2d 117, 130 [ 317 P.2d 82].)

  7. People v. MacEwing

    314 P.2d 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    Rehearing Granted Oct. 3, 1957. For Opinion on Rehearing see 317 P.2d 82. Ball, Hunt & Hart, Long Beach, for appellant Bruce Alexander MacEwing.

  8. People v. Han

    No. A115098 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008)

    One older lower state court precedent cited to us is distinguishable factually and as involving far different wording. (People v. MacEwing (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 117, 127-128.) No diminution of the federal constitutional standard is shown.

  9. People v. Scott

    158 Cal.App.2d 114 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)

    A rehearing was granted on October 3, 1957. The final opinion, reading substantially as above, is reported in 155 C.A.2d 117, 123 [ 317 P.2d 82]. [3] "In considering the question of corroboration, the relationship of the parties and their acts and conduct are competent evidence to be considered, and since corroboration need not be by direct evidence, the entire conduct of defendant may be looked to for corroborating circumstances and if, from those circumstances, his connection with the crime may be fairly inferred, the corroboration is sufficient. . . ."