People v. Munn
Before: Morrison
Synopsis
Cbsottnai. Law—Hubdeb—Intent—Instbuctions.—The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder of the second degree. The evidence showed that he struck the deceased two or three blows with his fist, from which death ensued. It was not shown that he intended to kill deceased, but the court instructed the jury that he was liable for all possible consequences of his act. Held, error.
Morrison, C. J. The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder of the second degree, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life in the State prison. The killing occurred in the town of Turlock, in the county of Stanislaus, on the 12th day of August, 1883, under circumstances substantially as follows: The defendant, Albert Case the deceased, and several others, were in a saloon kept by one Ross, at the hour of nine or ten o’clock at night, when an exchange of words occurred between the defendant and the deceased. What the exact words were does not clearly appear from the evidence. Suffice it to say they were words of insult from the defendant, and of remonstrance on the part of the deceased. There was, how-i [212]ever, no angry discussion, and persons present thought the defendant was jesting rather than in earnest. Case was sitting near the door, and defendant standing at the bar of the saloon. The latter walked over to where the former was sitting, and after the exchange of some words struck the former either two or three blows with his fist. The blows fell on the face or head of the deceased, and did not at the time or immediately afterward seem to produce any serious effect. How severe the blows were does not clearly appear, but they must have been dealt with a good deal of force. The deceased was a lad of sixteen or seventeen, well developed and largely grown for his age, and was nearly or quite as large as the defendant. The morning after the infliction of the injury the deceased, Case, was found lying on the ground, dead, near the room in which he slept.
The post mortem, examination showed that there was a fracture of the skull just above the right ear, and a large clot of blood on the inside of the skull. This came from the rupture of an artery, and was pronounced by the physician making the autopsy to be the cause of death.
The principal question in the case which we deem it necessary to consider is, did the facts, admitting them in their full force and effect, constitute murder?
This degree of 'homicide is defined by section 187 of the Penal Code to be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, whereas manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. (§ 192, Pen. Code.)
“It is of two kinds: First, voluntary, upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Second, involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution or circumspection.”
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)