People v. Chew Sing Wing
Before: Haven
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Homicide—Instruction — Charge as to Matters of Tact — Constitutional Law. — Upon the trial of a defendant charged with murder, an instruction to the jury that if the testimony is believed it would undoubtedly make out a case by the prosecution of murder in the first degree, and that it tended to show that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, is a charge to the jury as to matters of fact, in contravention of the constitution.
Id. —Degree of Murder — Province of Jury — Questions of Tact and Law. — It is peculiarly a question of fact within the province of the jury to determine whether the killing was perpetrated with the deliberation and premeditation necessary to constitute it murder in the first degree, unless the facts in evidence show that the murder was committed by such means as are, by the terms of the statute, made conclusive evidence of murder in the first degree.
Id. — Appeal — Weight of Testimony. — Where the charge to the jury invades its province in determining a question of fact as to the degree of the murder, the appellate court will not weigh the testimony for the purpose of determining whether the verdict of the jury is right upon the evidence.
Id. — Error not Cured. — An error in an instruction as to the degree of the murder is not cured by a subsequent statement of the court to the effect that the jury should utterly disregard any intimation of his opinion as to the testimony.
De Haven, J. The defendant was by information charged with the murder of one Leuy Jing. He was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be imprisoned for life. He appeals from the judgment, and order refusing him a new trial.
[269]Upon the trial, one Chang Foolc, a witness for the people, testified: “ I was going up Baker’s Alley on the night of the 13th of July, 1889, in San Francisco..... I saw Leuy Jing coming down the alley and the defendant coming seven or eight steps behind him. I saw the defendant fire a pistol at Leuy Jing. After the defendant fired the shot he ran back up the alley, while Leuy Jing kind of hurried off down towards Dupont Street. .... When I saw Leuy Jing shot he ran down the alley.....He said, ‘ Save life,’ and he said, Sun Wing has shot me.’ ”
There was also introduced the dying declarations of the deceased, which were, in substance, that the defendant shot him; that he turned and saw him; that defendant followed him out of his room. He further said: “He accused me of asking Cum Moon for money. I did not attempt to hurt him or any one.”
This was all of the evidence in the case tending to show the circumstances of the shooting, and the court gave the following instruction to the jury: “If the testimony bearing upon the question of the killing, so far simply as the deceased is concerned, and the means by which he came to his end, are believed by you, it would undoubtedly make out a case by the prosecution of murder in the first degree, under the statutes. The testimony tends to show, under the circumstances, that the killing — whoever committed it — must have been deliberate, must have been premeditated, must have been unlawful, and must have been malicious. All the elements of murder in the first degree occur upon the testimony, if believed, as given in the case, and by the conversation of certain persons. The only question t would be as to who committed the murder. The testimony is, I believe, uncontradicted, that this man, the deceased, was shot in that alley, in what is called Chinatown, in this city, in the night, in the back, that he ran a short distance, fell, and was picked up, and died of [270]that wound, and that the murderer—so far as the immediate evidence is concerned as to the act of killing — escaped from the spot without any further detection than this given by the testimony of one witness who professes to have seen the transaction.”
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)