People v. Watson
- Decided
- July 3, 1956
- Docket
- Crim. 5813
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- California
Cited 7,961 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error — John-Charles v. California (2011)
- concluding that instructional error is not subject to reversal unless an examination of the entire record establishes reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome — Gary Bortis v. G. Swarthout (2017)
- defining prejudice as the reasonable probability of a result more favorable to defendant — People v. Ocegueda (2016)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SPENCE, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree murder. His wife, Arlys Watson, was killed on February 15, 1953, in their San Francisco apartment. Defendant’s conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, but he argues these points as grounds for reversal: (1) the restriction of the defense’s cross-examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, Officer Mullen; (2) the giving of an instruction that neither the prosecution nor the defense was required to call as witnesses all persons present “at the events involved in the evidence”; [*821] (3) the refusal of an instruction requiring, in substance, that each essential fact in a chain of circumstantial evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the overruling of the objection to certain cross-examination of defendant. Only points (3) and (4) raise any serious question, but a review of the records leads us to the conclusion that there was no prejudicial error resulting in a “miscarriage of justice,” and the judgment of conviction should therefore be affirmed. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4½.)
In February, 1953, defendant was 26 and his wife was 22. He was then an Army corporal, stationed in San Francisco, and was due to be discharged on March 19, 1953. The couple were married in June, 1952, and lived in an upstairs furnished apartment. Apparently there was no particular friction between them.
Cite this
People v. Watson, 299 P.2d 243 (1956)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.