People v. Hicks

[315]

HOUSER, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter, and from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied, appellant has appealed to this court.

The action was tried before the court without a jury, and the only specifications of error presented by appellant are that “the court erred in applying the law to the facts” and that “the verdict of the court is contrary to and against the evidence produced at the trial, and the law.”

From the briefs of respective counsel it appears that the point at issue is whether the evidence adduced at the trial of the action was sufficient to support the judgment.

It is argued by appellant that because in rendering judgment the judge of the trial court made the statement in substance that if the case should stand entirely upon the testimony given by defendant “an actual ease of manslaughter was shown”,—in determining whether the judgment should be reversed no consideration should be given by this court to the other evidence in the case. But manifestly such is not the law. The authorities are numerous to the effect that, notwithstanding the fact that in rendering judgment an erroneous or an insufficient reason therefor may have been assigned by the trial court, if on review it appear that upon any theory the judgment rendered was in accordance with the law as applied to the facts in the case, it will be sustained. (2 Cal. Jur. 809; 24 Cal. Jur. 924, and authorities respectively there cited.)

Although in some particulars contradicted by testimony given by defendant, evidence was presented on the trial of the instant action which in substance showed that immediately prior to the commission of the offense “this man that killed (Washington) came out and run down here onto the ground, and Mr. Hicks (defendant) came out on the porch there and they were talking, but I don’t know what they said. Mr. Hicks went back into this open door and left the door open and this man that was killed went up onto the step to the porch and Mr. Hicks came back and struck him three blows and I saw the man fall and that’s all I know.” No blows were exchanged between defendant and Washington when they first came out of the house and walked down to the side of the steps; defendant talked as