People v. Achal

PRESTON, P. J.

Defendant was charged with the crime of murder, and upon a trial, following his plea of not guilty, a jury returned a verdict finding the said defendant guilty of the crime of manslaughter. A motion for a new trial was denied and judgment rendered directing the imprisonment of the defendant for the term provided by law. Defendant appeals from the said judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

We find it unnecessary to detail the facts of the admitted homicide, though in discussing the grounds urged on the appeal, such features of the case as will serve to throw light upon the arguments made will be detailed.

The points urged for a reversal total four in number. First: Appellant- contends that the trial judge forced a compromise verdict by an instruction given the jury. The case had been given to the jury at about 10 o’clock in the morning, and about 9 o’clock P. M. of the same day the jury requested the reading of certain testimony. After this testimony was read the jury again retired, and about 9 :30 A. M. of the next day the jury again returned into court and reported little likelihood of an agreement. At this time the court below gave the instruction or suggestion complained

[654]

of. The trial judge said: “There has been an agreement reached by juries after having been out a longer period than you have been out. The facts of the case are all before you. It has been quite a protracted trial, and the essential features of it have been covered by many different witnesses. The evidence is here available for you if you desire to hear any of it re-read, and it appears to me you ought to be able to reach an agreement on due consideration. There is no desire on the part of the court to punish the jury nor influence you in any way in any prolonged session. It is extremely important that the ease be determined. You haven’t been out twenty-four hours yet, and this is a murder case, the highest type of case known to the law. It is both important to The People and the defendant that the trouble and expense and delay of a new trial be avoided, if it can be done fairly under the evidence, with justice to both sides.” It is the concluding portion to which appellant most strenuously objects.

We find no merit in the point. Appellant cites