People v. Palassou

Criminal Law—Manslaughter—Discharge of Prisoner for Delay of Trial—Dismissal—Future' Prosecution not Barred.—Where a defendant, charged with manslaughter, was upon his own motion discharged from custody, and the information dismissed because he had not been brought to trial within sixty days, as required by law, this was not a bar to a future prosecution under a new information for the same offense.

Id.—Pleas of Former Acquittal and Once in Jeopardy—Proper Instruction.—Where the defendant, on account of such discharge and dismissal, interposed pleas of “former acquittal” and of “once in jeopardy,” the court had the right to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the people upon the pleas.

Id.—Killing of Wife—Evidence—Prior Assault—Statements of Defendant—Modification of Requested Instructions.—Where defendant was charged with manslaughter in killing his wife, and the daughter testified to statements made by him to her, when she went to her mother after hearing her cry from the effects of a prior assault defendant had just made upon her, a requested instruction for defendant as to such statements was properly modified by omitting matter of argument, and as to the effect of evidence, and where, as so modified, the jury was charged that such statements could only be considered for the purpose of showing his conduct when they were made, it was as favorable as to defendant as he had any right to expect under the circumstances.

Id.—Evidence of Threats of Deceased—Requested Instruction Properly Refused.-—-Where the evidence conflicts as to whether the wife’s death was accidental or was the result of a blow from the defendant, the jury had the right to consider evidence of previous threats made by defendant against Ms wife, in determining whether or not the blow given by him was intentional and unlawful or aeeidental; and the court properly refused a requested instruction that evidence of such threats could only be considered upon the question of intent or motive.

Id.—Evidence of Brutal Course of Conduct Toward Wife—Motive for Death.—Evidence was properly allowed to show a brutal course of conduct of defendant toward Ms wife, on numerous prior occasions, which ultimately culminated in her death, not for the mere purpose of showing distinct and unconnected crimes, but as shedding light on the question as to defendant’s motive, and whether or not the death was the result of a blow or of an accident. Evidence which shows a motive, or throws light upon the facts and circumstances leading up to the particular crime, is admissible, although the acts and conduct on prior occasions may of themselves have constituted a distinct crime.