People v. Silva

[122]

BURNETT, J.

Appellant bases his claim for a reversal upon four ground's, but there is not sufficient merit in any of them to justify an interference with the verdict of the jury or the judgment of the lower court.

1. The court refused the following instruction requested by appellant: “You are instructed that if the defendant be proved of good character as to truth, veracity, honesty, morality and integrity, such good character may be sufficient to create and generate a reasonable doubt of his guilt, although no such doubt would have existed but for such good character.” The principle was fully covered by the following instruction given at defendant’s request: “You are further instructed that good character is of importance to a person charged with crime, and you have a right to consider whether the person of good character would be less liable to be guilty of the crime than a person of bad habits and character. The good character of the defendant when proven is itself a fact in the case; it is a circumstance tending in a greater or lesser degree to establish his innocence, and it is not to be put aside by a jury in order to ascertain if the other facts and circumstances, considered by themselves, do not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ’ ’

2. While the trial was in progress an unusual incident occurred, which appears in the transcript as follows:

“Before the jurors left the jury box, a man standing at the left of the defendant addressed the court as follows: ‘They have got the wrong girl. It is not Elsie Lopez at all.’

‘ ‘ The Court: ‘ Take your seat, sir. ’

“The man standing at the left of the defendant: ‘Well, I want to say they have got the wrong girl. I am the father of the girl and it is not Elsie Lopez.’

“The Court: ‘Take this man from the court room, Mr. Sheriff. ’

‘ ‘ The bailiff escorted the man from the court room. ’ ’

The man’s conduct, of course, was reprehensible and explainable only upon the theory that he was drunk or insane. Such declarations in the presence of the jury might under some circumstances prejudice the substantial rights of a defendant, but we must presume that the jurors were men of probity and fair intelligence and that they heeded the earnest admonition of the court: ‘ ‘ The case must be decided upon lawful evidence