People v. Benning

California Court of Appeal Jun 27, 1927 No. Docket No. 1399.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a jury is not required to accept a defendant's uncontradicted testimony regarding self-defense when circumstantial evidence supports a contrary inference. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a manslaughter conviction where the defendant was the aggressor and circumstances contradicted the claim of imminent danger.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction despite the defendant's uncontradicted testimony of self-defense.
Whether the district attorney's opening statement regarding evidence of threats and the deceased's actions was prejudicial.
Whether the trial court's instructions to the jury constituted improper comment on the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general rule is that the jury may disregard the testimony of the defendant when other circumstances warrant it”

“we have found no authorities holding that the uncontradicted statement of a defendant made in his own defense must always be accepted as proof of the facts leading up to the commission of the crime.”

NOURSE, J.

The defendant was tried on an information charging the crime of murder and was found guilty of manslaughter. From the judgment following the verdict

[170]

and from the order refusing a new trial the defendant has appealed on a typewritten record.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the defendant shot and killed one John Pena in the city of San Jose on the sixteenth day of August, 1926, at about 6 P. M. Ill feeling had arisen between the defendant and the deceased growing out of information coming to the defendant of improper relations between the deceased and the defendant’s wife. Some time prior to the killing the defendant had warned the deceased to cease his attentions to his wife, but a short time thereafter the defendant’s wife informed him that the association still continued. On a number of occasions immediately prior to the killing friends and neighbors had informed the defendant concerning these relations. This information, it is claimed, influenced the defendant to seek out the deceased in order to give him additional warnings, and as the defendant started out upon this mission he procured from one of his friends a loaded revolver, which he testified he took along merely for the purpose of scaring the deceased and to protect himself in the event the deceased and his associates made an attack upon him. The defendant found the deceased in a pool-hall, but not wishing to approach him in company with his associates he, the defendant, waited in his automobile on the other side of the street directly in front of the entrance of the pool-hall until the deceased came out. As the deceased started to walk down the street the defendant moved his car to the other side of the street and engaged the deceased in conversation. The only testimony as to what occurred at that time comes from the lips of the defendant. This testimony is that the defendant accused the deceased of having improper relations with his wife and insisted that he come down with him to the home of one Orlo King, a friend- of the defendant, in order that he may make proof of his assertions; that he informed the deceased that defendant’s wife had made a complete confession to. him of these relations; that the deceased refused to go with him to King’s, whereupon the defendant told him that he had a gun in his car, which he displayed to the deceased. It is then in the testimony that the defendant thought the deceased made a motion with his right hand to draw a gun from his hip- pocket, whereupon the

People v. Benning

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief