People v. Andrade (1915) · DecisionDepot

People v. Andrade

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 1915 No. Crim. No. 427.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury that the defendant admitted to the killing and was claiming self-defense, as this instruction usurped the jury's fact-finding function and violated the defendant's right against self-incrimination.

Issues

Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the defendant admitted to the killing and claimed self-defense?
Was the defendant's confession properly admitted into evidence?
Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury that they must find the defendant committed the crime with the intent of robbery to convict?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In giving the foregoing instruction the court usurped the functions of the jury.”

“It withdrew from the jury the determination of the essential question whether or not the deceased came to his death at the hands of defendant”

“The judgment and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are reversed.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. A. Allen, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CONREY, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

On the morning of January 10, 1915, the dead body of one Ina P. Cook was found on a public road in the county of Tulare, and from the evidence it clearly appears that his death had been caused by a bullet wound in the head. The evidence further shows that on the previous afternoon and evening he had been traveling along that road in an open buggy and in company with the defendant. When the deceased was last seen alive, so far as the evidence shows, he was in company with the defendant. There are no eyewitnesses to the attack which caused the death of deceased, and in that respect the defendant has been convicted entirely upon circumstantial evidence, with the single exception of an alleged confession by the defendant. The sheriff of Tulare County gave testimony concerning an interview between himself and the defendant after defendant’s arrest and that in that interview the defendant admitted that he had shot Mr. Cook. The precise words covering this point, as stated by the sheriff, were that defendant “said that he did not remember whether he shot' him as he was. getting up or after he got up. After he shot him he ran away. He did not- know where he throwed the gun.”

The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, but stood silent under his plea of not guilty. On this state of the record the court charged the jury as follows: “You are instructed that the defendant does not deny that he killed one Ina P. Cook on the 9th-day of January, 1915, but claims that such killing was done in self-defense.” The defendant claims that the giving of this instruction constitutes prejudicial error; and with this contention we are constrained to agree. “No person shall ... be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. ...” (Const.

[3]

Cal., art. I, sec. 13.)

“A

defendant in a criminal action or proceeding cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. . . . His neglect or refusal to be a witness cannot in any manner prejudice him

nor be used against

People v. Andrade

AI Brief

Synopsis

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief