People v. Batchelder

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1864Published

Before: Currey, Sawyer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's right to self-defense, as the defendant was entitled to have the jury determine whether the homicide was committed in necessary self-defense against an unlawful attack.

Issues

Whether the defendant was entitled to jury instructions regarding the right to self-defense when the deceased and his party were not in lawful possession of the land.
Whether the defendant's act of landing on the island while armed rendered his actions unlawful or precluded a claim of self-defense.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant and his party had the right to enter upon the island, provided the Government, in the legitimate exercise of its proprietary and sovereign authority, made no objection”

“it was the right of the defendant to have the question submitted to them in a distinct and palpable form to answer by their verdict, whether the homicide was committed by the defendant, or any one of his companions, in his or their necessary self-defense”

Synopsis

Occupancy op an Island poe gatheeing the Eggs op Wild Bibds.—Persons in the casual and temporary occupancy of an island, a part of the public domain, engaged in the pursuit of hunting, fishing, or gathering the eggs of wild birds deposited there, and who do not occupy the land for purposes of husbandry, residence, or commerce, are not in such possession of the same as to entitle them to exclude others who desire to occupy it for a like purpose, or to justify them in resisting by force others who attempt to land upon it to engage in the same pursuit.

Justifiable Homicide.—If several persons are on an island, a part of the public domain, engaged in gathering the eggs of wild birds deposited there, and others attempt to land there to engage in the same pursuit, and their attempt to land is resisted hy force by the party first there, they are justified in using such force as may he necessary to effect their object; and if one of the opposing party is slain, it will be justifiable homicide.

Same.—If the persons attempting-to land on the island are armed with guns, this does not affect their right to land; and if they are attacked hy those on shore with deadly weapons and muderous intent, and their lives placed in danger, they are not obliged to retreat, but may stand their ground, and, if need be, kill their assailants.

Opinion — Currey

By the Court, Currey, J. The defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of the City and County of San Francisco, for the crime of manslaughter in the killing of Edward Perkins at the Farallone Islands, on the 4th of June, 1863. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was afterward tried and convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Prison for one year. From this conviction and judgment he has brought the case to this Court upon a statement embodying all the testimony produced on the trial, in which is contained the charge of the Court to the jury, and also certain requested instructions on the part of the defendant, which the Court refused to give to the jury, together with the exceptions taken hy the defendant to various rulings during the progress of the trial.

The evidence discloses that on the 3d of June, 1863, the defendant and some twelve or fifteen other persons repaired in vessels to the anchorage adjacent to the principal of the Farallone Islands, situated about thirty miles westward from the City of San Francisco, and there remained during the night of that day; that on the morning of the next day, between six and seven o’clock, a portion of this party attempted [71]to laud upon the island, when they were met at the shore by a guard armed with guns, who, by words, accompanied by menacing acts, warned them not to land. Upon thus being warned and threatened, the party so attempting to go on shore returned to their companions upon the vessels at anchor, where they were joined by all, or nearly all, the defendant’s party, and were furnished with loaded gun', and the party, thus reinforced and equipped, made another attempt to land at a point upon the island a short distance from where the guard on shore were. Upon nearing the land, the shore party confronted them and again warned them off, but notwithstanding they were thus warned, the defendant’s party continued to approach the island, for the purpose of landing thereon, when the shore guard opened fire upon them, which was immediately returned by a volley from the defendant’s party, who were together in a boat. The shore party fired several shots after the first round, when the defendant’s party retreated. By the first fire from the men on shore several persons were wounded, one of whom subsequently died, and by the fire from the defendant’s party one of the shore guard, Edward Perkins, was killed.

The object which the defendant and his companions had in visiting the Farallone Islands was to gather the eggs deposited there in great abundance by wild sea fowls. Before the time of the collision which resulted in the death of Perkins and another, a number of persons known as the Farallone Egg Company had been engaged in procuring the eggs deposited by the wild sea birds upon this island and selling the same in the San Francisco market; and the shore party, of whom Perkins was one, were in the employment of this egg company. It appears from the testimony of some of the persons composing the shore party that their chief business was to guard the island for the, benefit of the egg company, against the ingress of any other persons who might desire to visit it for the purpose of gathering eggs there. The egg company, it seems, claimed the exclusive right of gathering wild birds’ eggs upon the island, as the prior occupants of it for that pur

People v. Batchelder

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Currey

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Sawyer

AI Brief