People v. Hampton

California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 1929 No. Docket No. 1748.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of excusable homicide, as the evidence presented facts that could support such a finding under Penal Code section 195.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's requested instruction on excusable homicide under Penal Code section 195.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The gist of such instruction was the direct contrary to that part of the law contained in section 195 of the Penal Code”

“In no instruction given to the jury were the rights of defendant attempted to be protected so far as the defense of excusable homicide was concerned.”

“It appearing that at least in such respect defendant was prejudiced in his substantial rights, it is ordered that the judgment be and it is reversed.”

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter.

Briefly, it appears that as defendant was about to enter a certain pool-hall he “took off his hat, waved it around and let out a yell.” A man by the name of Moat, who was standing near the rear of the pool-hall and who remonstrated with defendant on account of his conduct, was struck by defendant on the mouth and nose. Defendant then walked toward a man named Wesley Blake, with whom he was on friendly terms and who was leaning against a counter about ten feet from the entrance to the pool-hall. Blake said to defendant, “Prank, you had no right to hit Moat.” After a few hot words had passed between them, possibly accompanied by a threatening attitude on the part of Blake, defendant knocked Blake down. The testimony was conflicting as to whether as Blake was rising, or after he had risen and had advanced toward defendant and had attempted to and did strike him, defendant again struck Blake. The blow received by Blake at that time knocked him backward out of the front door of the pool-hall, where he fell; his head struck the sidewalk, from the effect of which he became unconscious and died on the following day.

On the trial of the action the district attorney made the statement to the court that the prosecution would not attempt to prove defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, but would ask the jury to determine whether defendant was guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

Section 195 of the Penal Code includes the following provision :

“Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

“2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Defendant’s request for an instruction to the jury as to when or in what circumstances a homicide is excusable in

[159]

the law was by the court refused. Such requested instruction was as follows:

People v. Hampton

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief