Summary
In People v. Methvin, 53 Cal. 68, a similar question was held to be improper; but in this case the question was asked and answered without objection.
Summary of this case from People v. RamirezOpinion
Appeal from the County Court of Colusa County.
The defendant was tried for the crime of robbery. At the trial the Court permitted the District Attorney, for the purpose of impeaching the veracity of a witness who had testified in behalf of the defendant, to ask the question as stated in the opinion of the Court. The defendant was convicted, and appealed.
COUNSEL:
A. L. & T. J. Hart, for the Appellant.
Attorney-General Hamilton, for the People.
OPINION By the Court:
The Court below erred in permitting the question, (against the objection of defendant's counsel) " From what you know of his reputation, and what you know of him ," [the witness sought to be impeached] " would you believe him under oath in a matter in which he is interested?"
Assuming that the question was in other respects proper, it is clear that, in so far as it authorized the witness under examination to base belief on his personal knowledge--as distinguished from general reputation--the question was improper.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.