People v. Ing (1967)

He thus placed the matter of identity squarely in issue, and the prosecutor's attempt to establish on cross-examination his involvement in offenses whose similarity to the charged offenses indicated a common malefactor was proper. ( People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Schader, supra, 71 Cal.2d 761, 770-771 .) (10) Moreover, defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was not infringed by the allowance of such cross-exa…

Miranda prohibits use by the prosecution of "statements ... stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination" ( 384 U.S. at p. 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d at p. 706 ]), and Escobedo similarly is concerned with statements elicited by the police during interrogation where, among other things, the suspect is in custody (People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 613 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.…

I, § 15) except as to matters within the scope of relevant cross-examination ( People v. Thornton, 11 Cal.3d 738, 760-761 [ 114 Cal. Rptr. 465 , 523 P.2d 267 ]; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Bagwell, 38 Cal. App.3d 127, 140 [ 113 Cal. Rptr. 122 ]).

We have said that when a defendant testifies in his own behalf he thereby waives his self-incrimination privilege under both federal and state Constitutions as to matters within the scope of permissible cross-examination ( People v. Perez, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 620-622; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 610-611 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]) and that when he denies commission of the crime a defendant thereby renders "very wide" the permissible scope of his cross-e…

“Where a defendant takes the stand and makes a general denial of the crime the permissible scope of cross-examination is very wide.” (People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ], and cases cited therein.) When a defendant voluntarily testifies in his own defense the People may “fully amplify his testimony by inquiring into the facts and circumstances surrounding his assertions, or by introducing evidence through cross-examination which explain…

Any lingering doubt that Haston applied in so-called “sex cases” was dissipated in People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 755-756 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 523 P.2d 267 ].) Assuming that the court truly meant all it said in Haston and Thornton, three cases which were impliedly overruled in footnote 22 of Haston had to be People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Kelley (1967) 66 Cal.2d 232, 238-243 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 363 , 424 P.2d 947 …

(Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 160 ; see also People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 523 P.2d 267 ]; People v. Schader (1969) 71 Cal.2d 761, 770-771 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 457 P.2d 841 ]; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Perez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 615, 622 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ].) Although the permissible scope of cross-examination in California is restricted to the scope of the direct exami…

See also People v. Archerd, supra, 3 Cal.3d 615, 638 ; People v. Schader, supra, 71 Cal.2d 761, 773 ; People v. Haston, supra, 69 Cal.2d 233, 244 ; People v. Cramer, supra, 67 Cal.2d 126, 129 ; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Elder, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 381, 393 ; People v. Covert, supra, 249 Cal.App.2d 81, 83-84 ; People v. Malloy, supra, 199 Cal.App.2d 219, 230-231 ; People v. Crisafi, supra, 187 Cal.App.2d 700, 706 ;…

(People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) The defendant is represented on this appeal by the same attorney who represented him at the trial.

(See People v. Perez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ], cert. granted (1968) 390 U.S. 942 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1131 , 88 S.Ct. 1055 ]; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) Defendant contends alternatively that other, more specific rules render impermissible cross-examination upon the details of his prior conviction and upon the conditional sales contract.

(People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ] ; People v. Kerry, supra, 249 Cal.App.2d 246, 252 .) It is unnecessary in this case to decide whether the evidence of the prior offense, lacking sufficient distinctive characteristics to be admissible on the issue of identity, could be given to a jury on the issue of intent under a qualified instruction.

(See Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 , 409, fn. 3 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 453 , 86 S.Ct. 459 ]; People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 620 [4], fn. 2 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 609 [1], fn. 2 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ], the Supreme Court held that constitutional errors do not require automatic reversal of convictions without regard to the facts and circumstances of each ca…

The evidence of the prior acts discloses a common scheme or plan to commit indecent exposure. ( People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 619 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; People v. Cassandras, 83 Cal. App.2d 272, 279-282 [ 188 P.2d 546 ].) There is here a peculiar behavior pattern which tends to identify the perpetrator of the two earlier acts as the same person who committed the act charged in count II.

Code, § 261, subd. (a)(3); CALCRIM No. 1002 [a reasonable but mistaken belief that a sexual partner is not too intoxicated to give legal consent to sexual intercourse is a defense to rape by intoxication].) 6 See People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 607 (the defendant administered an intoxicating narcotic or anesthetic substance that prevented the victim from resisting); People v. Wojahn (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 135, 139 (the defendant injected the victim with a drug prior to en…

(See, e.g., Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 405 [12 years]; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [15 years].) The People side with Solis in arguing that the subsequent murder was inadmissible.

In People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 606-607, 612 , questioned on other grounds in People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 89, fn. 8 , the court held there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant‟s conviction of rape where he administered an intoxicating substance that prevented the victim from resisting. 46 trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.‟ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 260-261.) “ „Substantial evidence includes circumstantial e…

(See Ewoldt, at pp. 394-403, citing and discussing among other cases: People v. Lisenba (1939) 14 Cal.2d 403, 427-428 [ 94 P.2d 569 ] [“This court held that evidence of the defendant’s prior misconduct was admissible to establish a common design or plan to murder his wives for financial gain.” (Ewoldt, at p. 395, italics added)], People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ] [The testimony of two former patients of defendant, a physician, who li…

(See People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ], questioned on other grounds in People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 89 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ] [15 years before charged offenses]; People v. Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 284-285 [more than 30 years]; People v. Waples (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 ] [18 to 25 years].) Moreover, in this case there were not just one or two incidents from long ago, but a …

He stated that *1338 the prosecutor had been allowed to present his "version" of the prior similar acts, and that allowing cross-examination would "only prolong the trial and lead to other issues." The trial court concluded that when a defendant denies the charges, he or she may be cross-examined with respect to every issue related to the defendant's guilt and credibility, citing People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 760 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 523 P.2d 267 ] (by denying gu…

I, § 15) except as to matters within the scope of relevant cross-examination [citations].” (People v. Tealer (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 598, 604 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 144 ]; see also People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 760 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 523 P.2d 267 ], overruled on another ground in People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 , 973 P.2d 512 ]; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, Prese…

(See, e.g., ibid.; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (b), and 352. 3.

(Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414, 444 [ 64 S.Ct. 660, 677 , 88 L.Ed. 834 ] [stating that “[n]o procedural principle is more familiar . . . than that a . . . right,” even a “constitutional right,” “may be forfeited”]; accord, United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 731 [ 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ]; People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 305 , in. 2 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 , 27 P.3d 726 ]; People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1097, fn. 9 [ 108 C…

(Pe ople v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 610 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. James (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 876, 888 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 733 ]; People v. Thomas (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 862, 867 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 226 ].) Appellant’s testimony can more properly be considered a “voluntary” decision involving no constitutional violation.

Unfortunately, the dictum was reproduced verbatim in section 603 (at pp. 623-624 of 8 Cal.Jur.). [16] For another version, slightly longer but equally formalistic, see People v. Varnum (1969) 70 Cal.2d 480, 488 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 450 P.2d 553 ], and its progeny (e.g., People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1061, 1083-1084 [ 80 Cal. Rptr. 567 , 458 P.2d 479 ]; People v. Hathcock (1973) 8 Cal.3d 599, 609 [ 95 Cal. Rptr. 221 ]). [17] The Courts of Appeal, of course, have duti…

See, e.g., People v. Cook (1952) 39 Cal.2d 496, 500 [ 247 P.2d 567 ]; People v. Kirkes (1952) 39 Cal.2d 719, 726-727 [ 249 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Hampton (1956) 47 Cal.2d 239, 240-241 [ 302 P.2d 300 ]; People v. Brice (1957) supra, 49 Cal.2d 434, 437 ; People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 710 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 67 , 381 P.2d 947 ]; People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 613 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Nicolaus (1967) 65 Cal.2d 866, 881 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 635 , 423 P…

(People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 610-611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Perez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ].) This principle was reiterated recently by our California Supreme Court in People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 523 P.2d 267 ].

Although cross-examination of defendant about the Peguillan incident would have been perfectly proper, none was permitted by the court (People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 609-612 [55 *818 Cal.Rptr. 902, 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 619-622 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; People v. Thornton, supra, p. 760 ).

However, as we stated in People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 610 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ], “[u]nder federal decisions a defendant who takes the stand and testifies in his own behalf waives his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incriminátion at least to the extent of the scope of relevant cross-examination. [Citations.]” (In accord, People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 620-622 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ] [cert, granted ( 390 U.S. 942 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1131 , 88 S.Ct. …

“Under federal decisions a defendant who takes the stand and testifies in his own behalf waives his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at least to the extent of the scope of relevant cross-examination. [Citations.] It matters not that the defendant’s answer on cross-examination might tend to establish his guilt of a collateral offense for which he could still be prosecuted. [Citations.]” (People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 603, 610 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2…

Cf. People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 610 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) Once a defendant does elect to take the stand, however, he waives his federal and state constitutional privileges to the extent of the permissible scope of cross-examination.

(People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) 4 Government Code, section 9410 reads in pertinent part: “A person sworn and examined before the Senate or Assembly, or any committee, cannot be held to answer criminally or be subject to any penalty or forfeiture for any fact or act touching which he is required to testify.

(People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) 2 The equivocal answer of defendant when he was first given his Miranda warning by the officer left open to a subsequent determination his decision to make a statement in the absence of counsel.

Code, § 1237; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) 2 At the first trial which resulted in a deadlocked jury defendant was represented by privately retained counsel, M.

(People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; Pen.

(People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ] ; People v. D’Elia (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 764, 768 [ 167 P.2d 253 ].) Similar claims of inability to remember or locate an alibi witness have usually been viewed with disfavor.

(See People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 610 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ] ; People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 620 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ].) In the Ing and Perez cases, however, the court concluded that the Griffin-type comment and instruction were not improper since the subject matter of comment would have been proper cross-examination.

Code; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) However, inasmuch as defendant acted in propria persona in filing his notice of appeal, in the interest of justice wé will liberally construe the notice of appeal and review the merits as though the judgment were before us.

(People v. Arnold, 66 Cal.2d 438, 448 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 115 , 426 P.2d 515 ]; Ballard v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.2d 159, 168 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 410 P.2d 838 , 18 A.L.R.3d 1416 ]; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 612-613 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) But appellants contend that their right to counsel was subverted when Richards, posing as their confederate, secured the tape recordings and quoted their incriminating testimony, relying upon Massiah v. United States, supra, 3…

(People v. Arnold, 66 Cal.2d 438, 448 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 115 , 426 P.2d 515 ]; Ballard v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.2d 159, 168 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 410 P.2d 838 , 18 A.L.R.3d 1416 ]; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 612-613 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) But appellants contend that their right to counsel was subverted when Richards, posing as their confederate, secured the tape recordings and quoted their incriminating testimony, relying upon Massiah v. United States, supra, 3…

(People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; Pen.

Code, § 1237; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) Review will be limited to the appeal from the order granting probation (count 2).

(See People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 610-611 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ]; People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 620-621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ].) Appellant also complains of certain comments '"and-questions by Davis during said voir dire examination which presupposed that' the evidence of appellant’s guilt might be sd] great as to “overflow” to his client, Black.

Under Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ], and People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 613 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ], custodial interrogation, rather than focusing of an investigation, is a requisite element.

Code; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) Using the name Ernest Ryan, defendant and another man, Henry Ryan, representing themselves as brothers rented a bachelor-type apartment (No. 227) from the manager Henry Smith, on June 25, 1966.

Code; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) On October 31, 1966, in case No. 332314, a complaint was filed charging defendant and two others with possession of marijuana (§ 11530, Health & Saf.

Code; People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 614 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) On April 15, 1966, around 2:20 a.m., Officer Corbett, on a burglary stake-out, after observing defendant’s suspicious conduct, attempted to apprehend him in his automobile after identifying himself and requesting defendant to pull to the curb; defendant looked at the officer and-started speeding down Sunset Boulevard; a chase with siren and- spotlight ensued during which the officer observed'him ex…

(Tehan v. Shott (1966) 382 U.S. 406 , 419 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 453, 461 , 86 S.Ct. 459 ]; In re Gaines (1965) 63 Cal.2d 234, 237-240 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 404 P.2d 473 ]; and see People v. Perez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 615, 620, fn. 2 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; and People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal.2d 603, 609, fn. 2 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) The reasons enunciated in Tehan support application of the Rivers principle to the Griffin rule.

(People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 612 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 422 P.2d 590 ].) The judgments are affirmed.

(People v. Ing, 65 Cal.2d 603, 613 [55 Cal.Rtpr. 902, 422 P.2d 590 ].) Others were the subject of court admonitions which cured the error, if any.

(E.g., People v. Lane, 100 Cal. 379, 386 [ 34 P, 856 ] ; People v. McCarty, 164 Cal.App.2d 322, 325-326 [ 330 P.2d 484 ] ; People v. McCullough, 158 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 322 P.2d 289 ] ; People v. Lapin, 138 Cal.App.2d 251, 259 [ 291 P.2d 575 ] ; People v. Grimes, 113 Cal.App.2d 365, 370 [ 248 P.2d 130 ].) Other cases have spoken of a “peculiar or characteristic behavior pattern” (People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252, 266 [ 282 P.2d 53 ] ; People v. Crisafi, 187 Cal.App.2d 70…