People v. Muhlner

Searls, C. The defendant, Louis A. Muhlner, was informed against in the county of Alameda for the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed on the twelfth day of August, 1895, by the unlawful and felonious killing of one Jennie Lewis, at the said county of Alameda.

The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and, upon a trial, he was found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

Thereafter, and before judgment, defendant moved for a new trial upon all the statutory grounds provided by section 1181 of the Penal Code, except the first and seventh. That is to say, the motion was not based upon the ground that the trial was held in the absence of the [305]defendant, or upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The motion for a new trial, as appears by the order granting the same and from the bill of exceptions, was granted for the reasons shown by the following copy of said order:

“Comes now the court, being fully advised in the law and the premises, and orders that the motion for a new trial may be granted solely upon the ground that the evidence in this case was sufficient to warrant the jury in believing, beyond every reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, at the time and place charged in the information, take the life of the deceased, and to warrant them in believing beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that the act of killing upon his part was committed with malice, and that, therefore, the evidence was sufficient to warrant them in returning a verdict of guilty of murder. But that there was no evidence tending to show that such killing was not com. mitted with malice, but, to the contrary, there was evidence showing beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that such killing was committed with malice.”

The people appeal from the order granting a new trial, and urge that the court erred in granting said motion at the instance of defendant.

A careful review of the record fails to convince us that there was any good cause for granting a new trial other than that assigned by the trial court as a reason thereof.

Was the reason assigned sufficient to justify the order? We think not. Section 1159 of the Penal Code provides that: “The jury may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged,” etc.