Goodbye Horses

The question on everyone’s mind: In a prosecution for horse theft, does a trial court commit reversible error when it admits evidence that the defendant tried to secure an individual’s release from jail on an unrelated charge of horse theft?

Yes, said the court in People v. Dixon (1892) 94 Cal. 255. From the opinion: “Where it appeared that, subsequent to the date of the alleged larceny of horses charged in the information, a relative of the defendant and several other persons were arrested for stealing horses in another state, and while in confinement, pending examination and trial, the defendant earnestly exerted himself in various ways in attempting to secure the release of one of them, the statements of the defendant, made to various persons at that time, that he had promised a large sum of money [$1000.00!] to secure the release of such person, and that he had made arrangements to break into the jail and get him away, were too remote to be admissible in evidence against the defendant, and tended to prejudice the jury against him.”

The court’s reasoning was this: “It is only upon the conjecture that his deep interest in the escape of Buckmaster from prison was owing to his fear that the prisoner might reveal his (defendant's) previous criminal history that the evidence could be in any manner admissible. It could as readily be conjectured that his conduct was attributable to the unwise and unscrupulous zeal of an over-zealous friend, or that his contemplated assistance to Buckmaster was occasioned by his desire thereby to indirectly assist his brother, who at that time was charged with the same crime.”

I don’t know about the court’s conclusion here. Sure seems like a person who would “earnestly exert himself” on behalf of other horse thieves might be in the business of stealing horses. I’m going to reverse the judgment and reinstate Dixon’s conviction. Sorry Dixon.

So ordered.