People v. Sandoval

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, J.

A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. He appeals from the judgment.

Defendant and the victim, James Anderson, were migratory farm workers. The two men became involved in a quarrel in the mess hall of the farm labor camp where they were staying. Both had been drinking. They went outside to. fight. Anderson was larger and heavier than defendant. Defendant carried a knife concealed in a crumpled brown sack which he had stuck in his belt. The two men met behind a parked bus. Defendant grabbed Anderson’s hand and thrust the paper bag and knife against the latter’s chest. The knife wound was fatal. Defendant fled the scene but was found a short while later.

Defendant charges error in the trial court’s failure to instruct

sua sponte

that it should acquit defendant if the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant was justified in killing Anderson in self-defense. Such an instruction was approved in

People

v.

Sanchez

(1947) 30 Cal.2d 560, 571 [184 P.2d 673]. In defendant’s trial the court gave the standard instruction on reasonable doubt. Defendant’s trial counsel requested and the court gave a group of instructions on the principle of self-defense. The attorney did not request the

Sanchez

instruction. The pivotal question, then, is whether a trial court must give the instruction on its own motion when there is evidence which might justify a finding of self-defense.

In addition to the general instruction calling for acquittal in case of a reasonable doubt (Pen. Code, § 1096), a defendant has a right upon request to an instruction directing the jury’s attention to evidence which may engender a reasonable doubt.

(People

v.

Granados

(1957) 49 Cal.2d 490, 496 [319 P.2d 346];

People

v.

Kane