People v. Gonzales (1917) · DecisionDepot

People v. Gonzales

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 1917 No. Crim. No. 533.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the victim's statements were admissible as dying declarations because they were made under a belief of impending death, and that the trial court properly struck evidence of prior threats because there was no evidence of a hostile act by the victim at the time of the killing.

Issues

Whether the victim's statements were admissible as dying declarations.
Whether the trial court erred in striking evidence of the victim's prior threats against the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where a person has been fatally wounded, is in sore distress therefrom, and believes that he will not recover and is soon about to die, his statement made in this belief relating to the cause of his injury is admissible”

“The law does not justify a homicide, unless it is shown that the slayer was at the time of the killing in apparent imminent danger of losing his life, or of sustaining serious bodily injury; and previous threats, unaccompanied by some hostile act”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, and from an order denying a new trial. Milton T. Farmer, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and, in accordance with the verdict rendered, sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Deceased, Abraham Morales, with his wife and others, among whom was appellant, attended a gathering at the house of a neighbor on the evening of August 13, 1916. About 9 o’clock, P. M., defendant requested deceased to step out of the house with him, ostensibly for the purpose of a private conversation; whereupon deceased left his wife and went out

[341]

side with defendant. A few minutes thereafter a pistol shot was heard and Morales was found a short distance from the house, suffering from a bullet wound which caused his death three days later.

The court permitted the prosecution to introduce state* ments made by deceased immediately after being shot. Their reception in evidence was objected to upon the ground that they were not made under a sense of impending death, and therefore inadmissible as dying declarations. Touching the question, deceased, when found lying upon the ground, among other things, said: “He [referring to defendant] took advantage of me; run me out friendly and now done me. I am done.” “Joe [referring to defendant] took advantage of me; got me out there friendly and shot me. Now I am done.” “I am done; lift me up.” “I am in a dying condition; I am sure I am going to die.” “He took advantage of me. I think he killed me all right; I think I am dead. ’ ’ The wife of deceased testified: “He said he was going to die, and that he was going to leave me very far from my parents; that he [Gonzales] had not spoken to him as a man; that if he had spoken to him as a man, he would have defended himself.” In

People

Cord,

157 Cal. 568, [108 Pac. 514], it is said: “Where a person has been fatally wounded, is in sore distress therefrom, and believes that he will not recover and is soon about to die, his statement made in this belief relating to the cause of his injury is admissible, if it appears that he subsequently died from the direct effects of the wound.” Measured by this rule, the admission of the statements so made by deceased did not constitute error.

People v. Gonzales

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief