People v. Davis
Before: McFarland, McKinstry, Paterson, Searls, Sharfstein, Temple, Thornton
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lake County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
On the trial, the defendant interposed a challenge to the entire panel of jurors, on the ground that the manner in which they had been drawn and returned did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure in the following particulars: 1. That the supervisors selected a list of jurors from their respective townships, without any apparent effort to arrive at a proper proportion of the inhabitants; 2. That the aggregate of the lists thus prepared was less than the number of names designated in the order of the court, and was not in any reasonable proportion to the inhabitants; and 3. That no certified list was ever placed in possession of the county clerk, or was ever filed in the clerk’s office. The challenge was overruled. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
McKinstry, J. Appellant was found guilty of murder of the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison.
The information is as follows:—
“ State op California against James Davis. Information for murder.
“ James Davis is accused by the district attorney of said Lake County, by this information, of the crime of murder, committed as follows:—
“ The said James Davis, on the ninth day of December, A. D. 1886, at the said county of Lake, and state of California, did willfully, feloniously, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought make an assault in and upon one William Krumdick, a human being, and did then and there inflict upon the body of the said William Krumdick a mortal wound, of which said mortal wound, so inflicted by said James Davis, the said William Krumdick did afterwards, to wit, on the thirteenth day of February, 1887, die in the county of Lake aforesaid, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute in such case [357]made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of California.”
Under our statutes, an indictment or information is sufficient if it charges that the defendant did unlawfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought kill the deceased, naming him, and the time and appropriate place being stated. (People v. Cronin, 34 Cal. 200; People v. Murphy, 39 Cal. 55.) And in the cases cited, it was held that the sufficiency of an indictment is not to be tested by the rules of the common law, but by the requirements of our statute.
In People v. Martin, 47 Cal. 102, the indictment averred that the defendants “ willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and of their malice aforethought,” in and upon one Valentine Eichler did make an assault, and with an ax in and upon the head of said Valentine Eichler, then and there “ feloniously, willfully, and of their malice aforethought” did strike and beat, giving to said Valentine Eichler then and there, and with the ax aforesaid, .... divers mortal wounds, of which the said Valentine Eichler instantly died,” contrary, etc. The indictment was held good, notwithstanding it did not conclude with words to the effect, “ and so the grand jury say that the defendants, the said Valentine Eichler, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, willfully, and of their malice aforethought did kill and murder,” contrary, etc.
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)