People v. Demasters

California Supreme Court Jan 26, 1895 No. No. 21170Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault based on a local court rule requiring prior submission of instructions, as the court has the power to suspend such rules to serve the ends of justice. Additionally, the court erred in its jury instructions by using the term 'bite' instead of the statutory term 'slit' when defining the intent required for mayhem.

Issues

Whether a trial court may refuse to instruct the jury on a necessarily included offense based on a local rule requiring prior submission of instructions.
Whether the term 'bite' is a sufficient legal equivalent to the statutory term 'slit' in defining the intent to commit mayhem.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court erred in not instructing the jury as requested.”

“Rules of court are but a means to accomplish the ends of justice, and it is always in the power of the court to suspend its own rules, or except a particular case from their operation whenever the purposes of justice require it.”

“The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Assault with Intent to Commit Mayhem—Less Offense—Simple Assault—Befusal to Instruct Jury.—Under an information charging a defendant with an assault with intent to commit mayhem, the court should instruct the jury that the defendant may be found guilty of a simple assault, and, where the court has omitted to give an instruction to that effect of its own motion, it is error for the court to refuse so to instruct the jury when asked to do so by counsel for the defendant.

Id,—Rule Requiring Party to Present Instructions Before Argument—Object of Rules—Duty of Court—New Trial.—A rule of court requiring parties who desire instructions to be given to present them to the court before argument may be proper and beneficial as a general rule, when applied to doubtful and controverted questions of law; but rules of court are only a means to accomplish the ends of justice and may be departed from when the purposes of justice require it; and such general rule should not be allowed to prevent the court from giving an instruction upon request of the counsel of the defendant which is usually given by courts of their own motion, and a refusal to give such instruction is ground for a new trial.

Id.—Erroneous Instruction as to Mayhem—Intent to Bite Lip.—An instruction as to an assault with intent to commit mayhem with respect to the lip of another person should follow the statutory definition by using the word “slit,” employed in section 203 of the Penal Code, and is erroneous if it speaks of “biting” instead of “slitting” the lip. The lip may be bitten in such a manner as not to amount to mayhem, and the intent to “bite” is not the equivalent of an intent to “slit.”

Haynes, C. The information charged that the defendant “did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault one James Crawford with intent to commit mayhem.”

At the conclusion of the evidence certain written requests to instruct the jury were submitted by counsel for defendant, and, at the conclusion of the argument, these, and also certain instructions prepared by counsel for the people, were given, and following these the court [672]gave certain other instructions of its own motion, and was proceeding to instruct the jury as to the form of their verdict, when counsel for defendant, Mr. Eoth, said: “If the court please, have you forgotten an instruction as to the degrees ? There are two degrees.” The Court. “ You have offered no instruction on that subject.”

Mr. Roth. “ I thought it customary for the court to give those instructions.”

The Court. “ I was going to instruct them as to the form of the verdict.”

Mr. Roth. “ Very well, the form may give it.” Thereupon the court instructed the jury that, if they found the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to commit mayhem, their verdict should be: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to commit mayhem; should you find the defendant not guilty, the form of your verdict should be, ‘We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.’ ”

Mr. Roth. “ I would like to ask, can we have an instruction as to the degree of this crime ? I think the charge includes the charge of simple assault.”

The court replied, in substance, that a rule of that court required a party who desired instructions given to present them to the court before the argument; that it did8not like to take chances on giving an instruction on the spur of the moment, and declined to instruct the jury upon that subject.

The court erred in not instructing the jury as requested. Section 1127 of the Penal Code provides: “ In charging the jury the court must state to them all matters of law necessary for their information. Either party may present to the court any written charge, and request that it be given. If the court thinks it correct and pertinent it must be given; if not, it must be refused.”

Section 1159 of the Penal Code provides: “The jury may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in that with

People v. Demasters

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief