People v. Richardson

McCOMB, J.

Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of murder in tlie second degree. From the judgment and

[430]

order denying his motion for a new trial he appeals. There is also a

purported

appeal from the verdict and sentence.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution

(People

v.

Dukes,

90 Cal. App. 657, 659 [266 Pac. 558]), the facts are these:

June 11, 1937, at about 1 o’clock in the morning, while Roy Brown, Miss Gertrude Brown, defendant, his wife, and others were riding in defendant’s automobile, Roy Brown and defendant engaged in an argument over the amount of gasoline then in the car. Shortly afterward they arrived at defendant’s home and all of the occupants of the automobile alighted, whereupon defendant walked up behind Roy Brown, called him “a dirty rat” and stabbed him with a knife, from which wound he died.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

First—There was no substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.

Second—The trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting, over objection, deceased’s brother and sister to ansiuer the following question: “Did you ever hear him {referring to defendant) say that he was going to kill your entire family 1”

Third—The trial court committed-prejudicial error in refusing to permit defendant to show: {a) deceased’s state of mind toward Gertrude Brown {b) if Gertrude Brown knew any reason why defendant did not strike deceased when the latter got out of the automobile.

Fourth—It was prejudicial error for the trial court to deny defendant’s motion for a neiv trial.

Fifth—The verdict of the jury was a compromise.

As to defendant’s first proposition, we have examined the record and find there was substantial evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the jury may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain every material finding of fact upon which the jury’s verdict was necessarily predicated. Further discussion of the evidence is unnecessary. (T