People v. Carrillo (1886) · DecisionDepot

People v. Carrillo

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

California Supreme Court Sep 18, 1886 No. No. 20212Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge committed reversible error by giving oral instructions to the jury that were not reduced to writing and by providing an erroneous written instruction regarding the standard of proof.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by giving oral instructions to the jury that were not reduced to writing.
Whether the written instruction provided to the jury regarding the standard of proof was erroneous.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instruction was erroneous.”

“But the court did not simply read the instruction as reduced to writing, but accompanied the reading with other oral language claimed to modify and render unobjectionable the written charge.”

“Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Erroneous Instruction. —In a prosecution for grand larceny, an instruction, quoted in the opinion, to the effect that the jury might find the defendant guilty, although they might not be entirely satisfied that he, and no other person, committed the alleged offense, held, erroneous.

Id. —Failure to Reduce Instructions to Writing. —In a criminal prosecution, the giving of oral instructions to the jury, which are nbt reduced to writing either by the judge or any other person, nor taken down by the short-hand reporter, is error.

McKinstry, J. In the margin, opposite to instruction No. 5 requested by the prosecution, the judge of the Superior Court wrote, “Given,—the word ‘possible’ [642]inserted in reading in two places.” There is nothing to indicate where the word was inserted “in reading.” The instruction to that extent was not in writing; because there is no evidence in writing of the instruction as actually given. But it is not necessary to say that for this reason alone the judgment should be reversed.

As reduced to writing, the instruction is as follows: —

1 “ The jury must be satisfied from

2 the evidence of the guilt of the

3 defendant beyond a reasonable

4 doubt before they can legally find

5 him guilty of the crime charged

6 against him; but in order to justi-

7 fy the jury in finding the de-

8 fendant guilty of said crime, it

9 is not necessary that the jury

10 should be satisfied from the evidence

11 beyond the possibility of a doubt.

12 All that is necessary in order to

13 justify the jury in finding the de-

14 fendant guilty is that they shall

15 be satisfied from the evidence of the

16 defendant’s guilt to a moral cer-

17 tainty and beyond a reasonable

18 doubt, although they may not be en-

19 tirely satisfied (beyond a possible doubt) from the evidence

20 that the defendant, and no other

21 or different person, committed the

22 alleged offense; and if the jury

People v. Carrillo

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief