People v. Williams

THE COURT.

The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of murder. Upon his trial he was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty years

[299]

in the state prison. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment is not challenged. It should be noted, however, that the evidence shows that a bullet fired from a pistol in the hand of the defendant, entered the body of the deceased “right above the collar bone . . . ; took a downward and inward course, penetrated the body of the third dorsal vertebra; . . . cut half the cord and embedded in the spinal canal.” The immediate effect of the wound was partial paralysis of the body of the deceased, and an operation for the removal of the bullet was found necessary. The location of the wound, and the course and effect of the bullet, in all probability would have caused death even if septicemia had not set in. While the death of the deceased was attributed to two causes, viz., the shock of the wound and the shock of the operation, nevertheless the former was asserted to be the primary cause, and the latter is only an immaterial contributing factor. Under these circumstances it was immaterial to know, and therefore the trial court rightfully refused to permit the defendant to show, whether or not the deceased would have survived the shock of the wound in the absence of naturally resulting complications. (Peo

ple

v.

Lewis,

124 Cal. 551, [45 L. R. A. 783, 57 Pac. 470].)

The wife of the defendant was called and sworn as a witness in his behalf. Complaint is made of the ruling sustaining an objection to a question propounded to her which called for a conversation between her and the deceased, had shortly before the commission of the homicide. Conceding that the testimony sought to be elicited by the question was admissible, still the error, if any, in the ruling complained of was rendered harmless by the fact that the witness was subsequently permitted to narrate the conversation called for by the question objected to. The witness not only narrated the conversation, but she told in detail of the conduct of the deceased toward her, and of his threats to kill her husband, the defendant, in the event of the latter interfering with the illicit sexual intercourse which had been carried on between the witness and the deceased. All that the defendant desired to show in that behalf was ultimately established in evidence by the testimony of the witness notwithstanding that several objections to that line of testimony had been previously sustained.