People v. Adams

[581]

HENSHAW, J.

Defendant, charged with murder, was ■convicted of murder in the second degree. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying him a new trial.

It is first urged against the verdict that it is unsupported by the evidence. Defendant sought to establish self-defense. It, was, however, proved by the prosecution that defendant, who was a barber in the service of the deceased, upon the morning of the homicide had been discharged by his employer. In the barber-shop at the time were the deceased, the defendant, and the porter, Patterson. The defendant accused the porter of having carried tales about him. The deceased said, “No, but some of the customers had complained of him.” The defendant replied, “Ton are a God damn lying son of a bitch.” The deceased jumped up from his chair and said, “Don’t call me no son of a bitch. Get out of here,” and advanced toward defendant. When close to him defendant fired the shot which caused death. The two men grappled, but not until after the shot had been fired. Defendant fled from the scene of the homicide to Santa Clara, where he was arrested. He did not board the train at the city depot, but walked down the track and took it at Millbrae Station. On his flight he stated that the deceased had tried to shoot him. Upon the trial, however, it was admitted that deceased made no effort to draw a pistol, and it was proved not only that deceased was unarmed, but that he never carried a pistol, and that defendant was aware of this fact. The evidence fully supports the verdict.

Certain objections to the rulings of the court upon the ■admission and rejection of evidence are argued. They have been examined with care, and it cannot be perceived that in .any of them was there error. It was permissible to prove that deceased was unarmed, and it was further permissible to prove his declarations with relation to the carrying of arms made in the presence of and to the defendant before the shooting.

(People

v.

Powell,

87 Cal. 362.) It was proper to interrogate the witness Brooks for the purpose of impeachment upon the testimony which he had given upon the preliminary examination of the cause, and the rulings of the •court admitting the testimony for that purpose were proper.