People v. Murphy
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Criminal Law. —Indictment.—In this State, the sufficiency of an indictment is not to he tested, by the rules of the common law, but by the requirements of the Criminal Practice Act.
Idem.—Murder.—The statement, in an indictment for murder, of the means by which the killing was accomplished, can never become material in ascertaining the offense charged.
Idem. —If the indictment is certain as to the person and the offense charged, and states all the acts necessary to constitute a complete offense, it contains all that is required by the Criminal Practice Act.
Idem.—In those cases in which it requires the concurrence of several acts, or the doing of the act under particular circumstances, to constitute an offense, the indictment should state the necessary acts and circumstances.
Criminal Pbaotice. —It is not error to permit a witness at the trial to use a sketch of a house, or other object, to explain Ms evidence as to the position of persons and objects, even though the sketch is not shown to be a correct representation, if the same be not. introduced in evidence.
Criminal Law.—Evidence.—When the testimony has established the complicity of a third person, not on trial, in the perpetration of the criminal act, evidence of the conduct of that person is admissible against the accused.
Idem.—At the trial, the accused, who had been sworn as a witness on his own behalf, was asked, on cross-examination, if he had not made certain statements (which were repeated to him), involving apparently important admissions against himself, to which ho answered: “I said words to that effect, hut not exactly in that way.” It was held, to he error to deny to the accused the right to disclose exactly what he did say, and to state the whole conversation at that time, relating to the same subject-matter.
Temple, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
The indictment in this case, leaving out the merely formal parts, is as follows :
“ The said John Murphy, on or about the 13th day of October, A. D. 1868, at and in the county and State aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder Patrick Murray,” etc.
It is objected to this indictment that it does not state the particular circumstances necessary to constitute the offense charged, and the particulars specified in the exception are, that it does not specify the means by which the death was occasioned, and that the deceased died within a year and a day after the stroke was received, or the cause of death administered. The sufficiency of the indictment is not to be tested by the rules of common law, but by the requirements of the Criminal Practice Act of this State. That Act provides that the particular circumstances need not be stated, unless they are necessary to constitute the offense charged. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, and certainly the means by which the killing is accomplished, can never become material in ascertaining the offense charged. The requirement that it must appear that the party died within a year and a day, is a rule of evidence merely. Unless the party dies within that time the prosecution will not be permitted to show that he died of the injury received.
The indictment is in the exact words of the form approved by this Court in the case of The People v. Cronin (34 Cal. [56191].) That case was decided after mature consideration, and we are not disposed to change the rule there established. We are unable to see how the defendant would be benefited by a more particular specification of the circumstances of the offense, unless it be in affording greater facilities to escape a trial upon the merits, by surrounding the case with additional technical requirements. It certainly affords no information of the course the prosecution will take upon the trial, and the defendant is no better prepared to meet the case which will be made against him. The indictment in this case is certain as to the person and offense charged, and states all the acts necessary to constitute a complete offense, and this is all that is required by the Criminal Practice Act. As to some offenses it requires a concurrence of several acts to constitute the offense; as, for instance, in an indictment for perjury, it may require circumstances to be stated before it would appear that commission of the offense was possible. In such case, of course, the indictment should state the necessary acts and circumstances.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)