People v. Carrillo

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 1930 No. Docket No. 1112.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the manslaughter conviction and that the defendant waived claims of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object at trial and by voluntarily introducing similar evidence herself. Furthermore, the court found that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, correctly covered all necessary legal issues.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for manslaughter.
Whether the district attorney committed prejudicial misconduct by asking improper questions.
Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding self-defense.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the testimony is amply sufficient to support the verdict.”

“Having voluntarily introduced such testimony, any so-called misconduct on the part of the district attorney in asking improper questions would seem to be entirely waived”

“A reading of the instructions given by the court to the jury shows conclusively that the instructions covered fully and correctly every issue which the jury was called upon to decide.”

PLUMMER, J.

By an information filed in the trial court on the fifth day of October, 1929, the appellant was charged with the crime of murder, in that she did, on or about the second day of October,

1929,

unlawfully, wilfully and with malice aforethought, kill and murder Rosaleo Carrillo. Upon

[390]

the trial had pursuant to said information the appellant .was convicted of the crime of manslaughter. Her motion for new trial having been denied, an appeal was taken to this court.

The record shows that the appellant and the deceased were husband and wife and belonged to a very low stratum of society. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth the testimony at length, and we content ourselves with the statement that the testimony is amply sufficient to support the verdict.

It appears that the deceased and the appellant were living on a small farm, and, while there, had been engaged in unlawfully making wine, and also using the same to a greater or less degree; that on the day of the homicide they had had some controversy over a cask of wine which the deceased, acting apparently under an agreement to discontinue the making of wine and the using thereof, was proceeding to empty, and the appellant, with a saucepan, or some other kitchen utensil, sought to save a portion thereof. It appears that the emptying of the wine was being done at a short distance from the residence of the appellant and the deceased; that upon taking a saucepan of the wine the appellant started toward the residence; that the deceased followed, making some remark to the effect that the appellant would not be allowed to drink the wine, or would not live to drink the wine. The appellant proceeded into the house, followed by the deceased at a short distance. The appellant, after entering the house, seized a loaded gun which was close by the entrance door, and, as the deceased approached, the appellant commanded him to halt. Instead of so doing he advanced toward the appellant, whereupon the appellant shot the deceased, from the effects of which he died within a very short time.

The story of the quarrel preceding the killing, and of the details of the homicide, all rest upon the testimony of the appellant. The record also contains considerable testimony of the past lives of the appellant and the deceased, which we do not need to set out in detail, further than to say it shows the debased character of both the appellant and the deceased. They were both given to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, and numerous fights between them occurred. The testimony also shows that prior to the mar

People v. Carrillo

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief