People v. Williams

On trial for murder, a juror, when called for examination, stated that he heard as rumor what purported to be the facts of the case, but did not hear it from a witness, nor from one professing to have knowledge of the facts; and from what he heard, had “formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accusedthat he had no reason to doubt what he had heard, and believed it at the time, and if the facts turned out the same as he had heard them, his “ opinion was formedHeld, that, upon objection for implied bias, the juror was not disqualified.

People v. Reynolds (16 Cal.) cited.

On trial for murder—the crime, if any, being committed while defendant was attempting to collect a road tax from a Chinaman—defendant introduced a witness who testified that he had been engaged in collecting taxes in the county, whereupon defendant offered to prove by him that “ it is a notorious fact that Chinese are in the habit of resisting forcibly the collection of taxes, and that all Collectors feel compelled to go armed for the purpose of resisting the assaults of the Chinese; and that it is a common practice for the Chinese to assault Collectors without provocation, and that Collectors have generally to procure others, as a matter of safety, to travel with them while in the discharge of their duties.” Objected to as irrelevant and ruled out: Held, that the evidence was not properly presented, and that there was no error in rejecting it in the form in which it was offered.

Held, further, that all the facts explaining the conduct of a party charged with crime should, as a general rule, be admitted in evidence.

In cases of homicide, malice, proved by pre-concert, going armed, etc., usually enters into the inquiry. To rebut this or any inference arising from the acts done, defendant may show why he was armed, upon what errand he went, and the like facts.

On trial for murder, the Court instructed the jury, that “ The fact that the deceased was a Chinaman gave the defendant no more right to take his life than if he had been a white person; nor did the fact, if you so find, that the defendant was seeking to enforce the collection of taxes against another Chinaman, or even against his victim, give defendant any right to take his life. Our laws do not sanction the sacrifice of human life in order to enforce the collection of taxes or licenses:” Held, that the Court had no right to use the word “victim ” as above, because it seems to assume that the deceased was wrongfully killed, which was the point in issue, and was calculated to prejudice the accused.

Courts, in their charges, should not directly or indirectly assume the guilt of the accused, nor use equivocal phrases which may leave such an impression.

Where on trial for murder defendant asked the Court to charge the jury: “ If defendant inflicted the mortal wound in self-defense, and his danger was so urgent and pressing that in order to save his own life it was necessary that he should have inflicted such wound, then the jury must acquit,” and the Court refused without assigning any reason: Held, that the Court had no right so to refuse; that if the refusal were based upon the ground that the same instruction had been already given, though in different language, then the Court should have distinctly informed the jury that this was the reason for refusing the instruction.