People v. Ah Kong

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 10,097Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an instruction omitting the statutory qualifications regarding mitigation or justification was not erroneous because the prosecution's evidence provided no basis for such defenses, and that an instruction favorable to the defendants regarding the degree of murder is not grounds for reversal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in omitting statutory qualifications from a jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for justification or excuse.
Whether an instruction directing a conviction for second-degree murder, when the facts might support a higher degree, constitutes reversible error.
Whether a proper foundation was laid for the admission of impeachment evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If there was anything in the evidence for the prosecution, tending to show that the offense amounted only to manslaughter, or that the defendants were justifiable or excusable, the instruction, as given, could not be supported.”

“There was nothing, therefore, in the evidence for the prosecution which required the Court to qualify the instruction; and the defendants were not damaged by the omission.”

“if the instruction was more favorable to the defendants than it should have been, they could not have been damaged by it.”

Synopsis

Ebbob which dobs no Habm.—On a. trial for murder, if there is nothing in the evidence for the prosecution tending to show that the offense amounted to manslaughter only, or that the defendant was justifiable or excusable, the error of the Court in charging the jury that the killing being proved, the burden of showing the justification, or other excuse, is cast on the defendant, without the qualification, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution shows it, does the defendant no harm.

Excusable ob Justifiable Homicide ob Manslaughteb.—If, on a trial for murder, the evidence of the prosecution shows that, while the deceased was walking on the street, unarmed, one 'of the defendants fired a pistol at him from behind, and that the deceased then seized hold of him, and the other defendant came out of a building and shot him in the back, and that then the first-named defendant shot him in the neck, .killing him, such evidence does not tend to show that the crime was manslaughter, or that it was excusable or justifiable.

Defendant cannot complain of Instbuciions, unless Injured.—If, in a criminal case, the instructions of the Court to the jury are more favorable to the defendant than they should have been, he is not injured, and cannot complain.

By the Court, Crockett, J.: The defendants being on trial under an indictment for' murder, the Court, at the request of the prosecution, charged the jury “that killing being shown, the law throws the burden of showing the justification or other excuse of defendants devolves upon the defense.” The wording of the instructions is very awkward; but the meaning is apparent, and could not have misled the jury. It could not well have been understood otherwise than as stating, that if the killing by the defendants was shown, the burden of proving a justification or excuse was upon them. But section one thousand one hundred and five of the Penal Code provides that “ upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse it devolves upon him, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution tends to show that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that the defendant was justifiable or excusable.” The defendants object that the instruction as given omits the qualifying portion of this section, and was for that reason erroneous. If there was anything in the evidence for the prosecution, tending to show that the offense amounted only to manslaughter, or that the defendants were justifiable or excusable, the instruction, as given, could not be supported.

But after a careful examination of the evidence for the prosecution, we find none whatever tending to show that the offense was only manslaughter, or that the defendants [8]were either justifiable or excusable. The evidence was that while the deceased was passing along the street, one of the defendants came to the door and fired a pistol shot at him, the deceased being wholly unarmed, and having his back towards the said defendant; that thereupon the deceased clinched the defendant, and seized the pistol with one hand and the other hand of the defendant with the other; that while they were in this position, the other defendant came from a contiguous building, and shot the deceased in the back or side; that thereupon the first-named defendant shot the deceased in the neck, breaking the spinal column and inflicting a mortal wound. There was nothing in this tending in the remotest degree to show that the crime was only manslaughter, or that the defendants were either justifiable or excusable.

There was nothing, therefore, in the evidence for the prosecution which required the Court to qualify the instruction; and the defendants were not damaged by the omission.

People v. Ah Kong

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief