People v. Brown (1881) · DecisionDepot

People v. Brown

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

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1881 No. No. 10,514Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's instruction to the jury, which suggested they were not legally bound to acquit the defendant even if they were not entirely satisfied of his guilt, was erroneous.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they were not legally bound to acquit the defendant if they were not entirely satisfied of his guilt.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“You are not legally bound to acquit him because you may not be entirely satisfied that the defendant and no other person committed the alleged offense.”

“The foregoing instruction was erroneous.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of Mendocino County.

The defendant was indicted jointly with Samuel Carr, John Billings, and George Gaunce, for the murder of William Wright. For the facts of the killing see People v. Brown (No. 10,601), reported infra, p. 345.

The Court: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Mendocino County of the crime of murder in the first degree, and on this appeal complains of the following instruction given to the jury by the Court below:

“You are not legally bound to acquit him because you may not be entirely satisfied that the defendant and no other person committed the alleged offense.”

The foregoing instruction was erroneous. (The People v. Kerrick, 52 Cal. 446, and cases therein referred to.)

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

People v. Brown

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief