People v. Russell

SHAW, J.

Defendant was charged by information with the crime of murder. Upon trial he was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals from the judgment and an order of court denying his motion for a new trial.

On February 12,19.12, defendant and one Ernest Besson engaged in an unfortunate controversy over the payment of one dollar due from the defendant to the latter. A fist fight followed, during which defendant used a knife upon Besson, inflicting four wounds, one of which, as found by the jury, caused his death, which occurred eight days later.

The record discloses evidence tending to prove defendant’s guilt. Indeed, we do not understand counsel to question the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, his discussion thereof being for the purpose of showing the prejudicial character of numerous alleged erroneous rulings of the court, both in giving and refusing to give certain instructions. The instructions given by the court of its own motion, including those- requested, a large part of which were given, cover some forty-two pages of typewritten matter; hence, whatever may be said as to the fairness of the court’s charge, it cannot be said the jury were not fully instructed.

1. Appellant insists that the death of deceased followed, not as a direct result of the wounds themselves, but was caused by the want of proper medical attention. Upon this theory it is argued that instruction No. 4, inasmuch as it assumed that the wounds caused his death, was highly prejudicial to defendant’s rights. Without entering into a discussion as to the effect of the instruction, it is sufficient to say that the court,

[753]

.at defendant’s request, gave an instruction

in haec verba

identical with that of which he here complains. Under the circumstances his rights could not have been prejudiced by reason of the alleged erroneous ruling.

2. Complaint is made that the court instructed the jury that the word “willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done, does not require any intent to violate the law or injure another. Not only did the court define the term in the language of the statute (Pen. Code, sec. 7, subd. 1), but conceding that the giving of the instruction was erroneous by reason of being uncalled for, it is impossible to perceive how it could in any manner have prejudiced defendant’s rights.