
    [Crim. No. 531.
    First Appellate District.
    November 10, 1914.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HAZEL LUX, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Murder—Evidence—Possession of Pistol—Cross-examination of Defendant—When Proper.—In this prosecution for murder where the direct examination of the defendant unequivocally referred to the pistol with which it is alleged she committed the crime charged against her, and to her possession of it, prior to' her going to a moving picture show, there was no error in allowing the people to cross-examine her as to what she did with the pistol prior to the shooting and where she carried it on her person, it appearing that the whole cross-examination on this point was germane to the direct examination.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order refusing a new trial. P. B. Ogden, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Gehring & Wyman, and A. L. Frick, for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

It is conceded that the evidence upon the whole case is sufficient to support the verdict; and the only point made is the alleged error in the cross-examination of the defendant. The direct examination of the defendant upon one particular point related to her possession, prior to her going to a moving picture show, of a pistol—the pistol with which it was alleged she committed the crime of murder charged against her. The direct examination unequivocally referred to this pistol and the defendant’s possession of it. The court is satisfied that the cross-examination on that point was germane to the direct examination. The people were entitled to know what she did with the pistol prior to the shooting, and where she carried it on her person. There is no doubt at all in our minds but that the cross-examination on that subject was legitimate and proper and without any prejudice to the defendant; and that being the only point in the case, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.  