People v. Wong Ah Ngow (1880) · DecisionDepot

People v. Wong Ah Ngow

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 10,434Published

Before: Bank, Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that a defendant's flight creates a presumption of guilt, as this constitutes an improper charge on matters of fact in violation of the state constitution. Contradictory jury instructions, where one part is erroneous, cannot be cured by other correct portions of the charge.

Issues

Whether a jury instruction characterizing flight as a 'presumption of guilt' violates the constitutional prohibition against charging juries on questions of fact.
Whether an erroneous jury instruction is cured by other correct portions of the charge when the instructions are contradictory.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But the vice in the charge consists in the fact that the Court instructed the jury, that a, presumption of guilt arose from the fact of flight.”

Synopsis

Evidence—Presumption—Flight—Constitutional Law.—Flight on the part of a person accused of crime is a circumstance for the jury to consider in determining the question of Ms guilt or innocence, but it does not give rise to a legal presumption of guilt. Held, accordingly, that an instruction of the Court below, to the effect that the flight of the defendant was strong presumptive evidence of his guilt, was erroneous; because no such presumption arose as a matter of law, and the instruction was therefore “ with respect to matters of fact,” and in contravention of the Constitution.

Instructions.—An erroneous instruction is not cured by a correct statement of the law in another part of the charge.

In bank, Morrison, C. J.: The defendant was convicted in the Court below of the crime of murder in the first degree, for the felonious killing, with premeditation and malice aforethought, of one Wong Ah Sun, and having been adjudged to suffer death, brings this appeal from [152]the judgment, and also from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The homicide was committed in the City and County of San Francisco; and on the trial it was shown in behalf of the prosecution that the defendant fled from said city and county to a remote part of the State immediately after the murder was perpetrated. The Court below, charging the jury on the question of flight, used the following language :

“ The flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime, or after a crime is committed with which‘he is charged, is a circumstance in establishing his guilt, not sufficient of itself to establish his guilt, but a circumstance which the jury may consider in determining the probabilities for or against him— the probability of his guilt or innocence. The weight to which that circumstance is entitled is a matter for the jury to determine in connection with all the facts called out in the case. I will read to you what has been said on that subject, from Wharton’s Criminal Law:

“ ‘ A presumption arising from attempts to escape or evade justice. Such an attempt, if shown, amounts to a strong presumption of guilt.’

“ ‘ It is admissible for the prosecution to prove that the prisoner advised an accomplice to break jail and escape, or that he offered a bribe to one of his guards, or that he killed an officer of justice when making such an attempt. Evidence of an attempt to bribe or intimidate witnesses gives rise to the same presumption. So with flight, to which no proper motives can be assigned, and with the acts of disguise, concealment of person, family, or goods, and many other ex post facto indications of mental emotion. By the common law, flight was considered so strong a presumption of guilt, that in cases of treason and felony it carried the forfeiture of the party’s goods, whether he was found guilty or acquitted.’ ”

It will be seen from the foregoing extract from the charge to the jury, that the Court below made the flight of the defendant strong presumptive evidence of Ms guilt. It is true that, in other parts of the charge, the jury was told that flight was a circumstance entitled to greater or less weight, and in many

People v. Wong Ah Ngow

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief