People v. Reed
Before: Britt
Synopsis
Homicide—Self-defense—Evidence.—On a Trial for Murder, the opinions of witnesses at the inquest that the defendant committed the homicide in necessary self-defense were not competent as direct evidence.
Homicide — Self-defense — Evidence. — Where a Defendant Charged with murder was guilty of the first assault upon decedent, though the same was not felonious, it was incumbent on him in good faith to decline further struggle before he could invoke the right of self-defense to excuse the killing.
Homicide—Self-defense—Evidence.—Where It Appears That the Defendant, who made the first assault, received a knife wound ■and retreated from the deceased, the question whether he then in good faith abandoned the combat, or whether he continued desirous to renew it on the first opportunity, was material in determining his right of self-defense, and where the evidence shows he continued ready and renewed it on the first opportunity, when the deceased was killed, it is sufficient t.o sustain conviction for manslaughter.
Homicide. — Rebutting Evidence Showing Defendant’s Bad Reputation for truth is competent, where he testified in his own behalf.
Homicide.—An Instruction Isolating a Single Item of Evidence, and telling the jury that the fact alone of its admission was insufficient to enable it to draw conclusions in connection with other facts as to the facts it tended to establish, was error.
BRITT, C. Defendant was tried on an information charging him with murder. He was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced accordingly. There was evidence at the trial of the following circumstances attending the homicide: Defendant and the deceased, one L. G. Brown, lived in a small house belonging to defendant, and together followed the business of making shakes in the adjacent forest. Deceased was about seventy years of age, and in infirm health. Defendant was thirty-six years old. The time was about nightfall. Two other persons—Bradley and Woods—came in to visit defendant at his house, and sat down with him at supper. Said Brown got up from a bunk where he was lying, in the same room, and in an insolent manner inquired of Bradley his name, and his business there. Defendant resented this, and rose from the table, and laid hands on Brown, and shoved him down, at the same time applying to him an opprobrious epithet. As Brown fell, his head struck against the bunk and the wall of the room. He arose, and stabbed defendant in the abdomen with a poeketknife having a blade four "inches long. Defendant exclaimed, “Boys, I am cut! ’ ’ and went out the back door of the house, followed by Bradley and Woods. After making some examination of the wound, defendant took up a shovel, and started as if to return to the door whence he had come out, but Bradley took the shovel from him. He and Bradley then went and sat down on a porch in front of the house, defendant complaining of sickness from the effect of the wound. At this time Brown came out of the front door upon the porch, with the knife in his hand. Bradley sprang up, and approached Brown cautiously, and placed his hand on him, saying, “Keep back, Mr. Brown.” The latter said nothing, and Bradley [959]turned for the purpose, as he testified, “of grabbing the defendant.” This effort failed, and at the same instant defendant seized a heavy club and struck Brown therewith on the head, from the effect of which blow Brown died a few hours later. Woods came from the rear of the house just as Brown received the blow. After deceased was struck, he was taken into the house and place in his bunk. Although insensible, he sat up, and defendant pointed a rifle at him, saying: “Get out of the way. Let me shoot him.” Defendant also threw a coffeepot and a teapot at him, which, however, failed of their mark. Prom the time of the first altercation until the final blow, about five minutes elapsed. A stick of wood was admitted in evidence after identification as the club with which defendant struck the deceased. Most of the matters above stated appear from the testimony of Bradley and Woods, who were called as witnesses by the prosecution. On cross-examination, each of them said that at the coroner’s inquest, held the day after the homicide, he had testified that the killing was in self-defense. Woods admitted also that he testified on the same occasion that deceased was advancing upon' defendant when the latter struck the fatal blow. On the morning following the homicide, defendant was heard to remark that he would as soon kill such people—referring to Brown—as a rattlesnake. Defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and gave testimony more favorable to himself, in some particulars, than that of the witnesses for the prosecution. Thus, he stated that Brown lunged toward him at the time he struck him with the club; that the stick he used was smaller than that admitted in evidence, etc. In rebuttal the court admitted testimony that defendant’s reputation for veracity was bad, to which evidence defendant objected that his own testimony was in harmony with that of the prosecution, and that the purpose of the rebutting evidence was to prejudice the minds of the jury against him, and not to impeach his credibility. The court refused an instruction to the jury, asked by defendant, to the effect that from the fact alone of the admission in evidence of the club with which, the prosecution claimed, Brown was killed, the jury were not permitted to infer that the fatal blow was struck with a club, or that the club admitted in evidence was the identical instrument used to strike such blow.
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)