People v. Williams (1888) · DecisionDepot

People v. Williams

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

California Supreme Court Mar 20, 1888 No. No. 20379Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for manslaughter, finding that alleged instructional errors were either cured by context, properly qualified, or could not be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested instruction on self-defense.
Whether a specific jury instruction regarding the degree of the offense improperly assumed the defendant's guilt.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on insanity in the absence of a formal plea.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This proposition is fully covered by instructions which were given.”

“We think the inadvertence was fully cured.”

“Admitting that the charge contains an instruction upon the subject of insanity, we cannot say, in the absence of a bill of exceptions containing the evidence, that it was not warranted by some issue in the case.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Murder—Instructions—Assumption of Guilt.—In a prosecution for murder, an instruction which inadvertently assumes the guilt of the defendant is cured, if the court subsequently states to the jury that it did not intend to make any intimation as to the guilt of the defendant, and fully charges them as to the burden of proof, and as to the necessity of the prosecution proving every essential fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. —Instruction to Acquit—Malice. —An instruction asked by the defendant, to the effect that unless it was established by the evidence that the killing was unlawful and with malice aforethought the jury must acquit, is properly qualified by adding the words “ of the crime of murder.” Id.—Appeal—Instruction not Warranted bt Evidence.—On an appeal in such a case, an instruction upon the subject of insanity will not' be held unwarranted by any issue in the case, in the absence of a bill of éxception containing the evidence.

Temple, J. —The defendant was tried for murder, and being convicted of manslaughter, appeals from the judg[307]ment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. There is no bill of exceptions, however, in the record, and we have before us only the judgment roll.

The first exception, urged here is to the refusal of the court to give an instruction asked by the defendant, to the effect that if the killing was done in necessary self-defense the defendant must be acquitted. This proposition is fully covered by instructions which were given.

It is next objected that the court instructed the jury as follows:—

“In this case, if the killing was willful, that is, intentional, deliberate, and premeditated, it is murder in the first degree; otherwise, it may be murder in the second degree or manslaughter, as the evidence may convince your minds.”

Taken by. itself, this instruction is, no doubt, defective in assuming the guilt of defendant. We may assume, however, that the fact of killing by defendant was admitted. This is an extract from a lengthy instruction on the subject of voluntary drunkenness, and the court was explaining the proposition that although such intoxication does not excuse crime, yet it may be considered in determining the degree of the offense. Taken with the context, the extract plainly means, “In this case, if a crime has been committed by the defendant while in a state of voluntary intoxication, if the killing was willful,” etc.

In concluding the instruction upon the subject, the judge added: “I desire to say, in connection with these instructions, that I do not intend to intimate to you, or to tell you in any way, whether this defendant was guilty of any crime or not. I call attention to this, because, as I remember now, that in giving part of one instruction which I just read to. you I omitted to state that which I should have stated at the time.”

The. j ury were very fully instructed as to the burden of proof, and that the prosecution must establish every [308]essential fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We think the inadvertence was fully cured.

People v. Williams

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief