People v. Simonds

California Supreme Court July 1, 1861

People v. Simonds, 19 Cal. 275 (Cal. 1861)

Baldwin

Opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

*278We think the Court below erred in admitting the declarations of the "prisoner’s wife, as testified to by the witness, Mrs. Hilliard. It was perhaps competent to prove by the witness that the wife was in possession of the money, and its appearance, and what she did with it; for these facts are a part of the general transaction, and have some bearing upon the question of the taking and possession by the defendant; but we cannot perceive that it was proper to admit the declaration of the wife that her husband had given her the money. If a third person had made this declaration, no doubt can exist that it would have been mere hearsay and inadmissible ; and we cannot see the difference in principle between the wife’s declaration and that of any one else. It is true that it has been sometimes said declarations of a party at the time of doing an act, which is legal evidence, are admissible as parts, of the res gestee, but this rule does not apply to admit, as against third persons, declarations of a past fact, having the - effect of criminating the latter. If so, any felon caught with stolen property might criminate an innocent man, by declaring that he obtained the property from such person, or that such third person was associated with the declarant in the criminal fact.

We are inclined to think the other points are not well taken, but it is not necessary to pass upon them specifically.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. SIMONDS
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: On trial for murder, it was shown, that defendant’s wife had an interview with him on the afternoon of the day after the killing, at the house of L., just before the wife came to the house of H., and about an hour before defendant was arrested; that defendant, at that interview, gave his wife two twenty dollar gold pieces, and that they were alone for half an hour. H. was called as a witness for the prosecution, and said defendant’s wife came directly from L.’s house to the house of witness; “ she showed me a hundred dollars.” The witness was then about to state what the wife said when she exhibited the hundred dollars. Defendant objected. Overruled, and witness said: “ The defendant’s wife told me that the defendant gave her the money at L.’s house, and asked me to take care of it for her,” which witness declined. The witness then stated that the wife huried the money for three or four days, and then dug it up, when she and the wife examined the five twenty dollar gold pieces and found blood on two of them; Held, that though it was perhaps competent to prove by the witness, H., that the wife was in possession of the money, its appearance, and what she did with it, yet that the declarations of the wife that her husband had given her the money were inadmissible. Such declarations, if made by a third person, would be mere hearsay, and there is no difference in principle between the wife’s declaration and that of any one else. The rule, as sometimes held, that the declarations of a party at the time of doing an act which is legal evidence are admissible as parts of the res gestee, cannot be so applied as to admit, as against third persons, declarations of a past fact having the effect of criminating such third persons.