People v. Wynn

MARKS, J. This is an appeal from a judgment pronounced upon defendant sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife.

Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree. He entered pleas of guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity. A jury found him sane. It was stipulated that the evidence in the trial on the question of his sanity might be considered in fixing the degree of the crime. When the trial [579]judge found him guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him to be imprisoned for life, this appeal followed.

By the foregoing recitation of the procedure permitted in this case we do not wish to be understood as intimating that a defendant should be permitted to enter the pleas of guilty, and not guilty, by reason of insanity. (See, sec. 1016, Pen. Code; People v. French, 12 Cal. (2d) 720 [87 Pac. (2d) 1014]; People v. Pincus, 131 Cal. App. 607 [21 Pac. (2d) 964]; People v. Morgan, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 612 [50 Pac. (2d) 1061].) That question is not presented for decision here.

Defendant presents but one question on this appeal, namely; the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that he was guilty of murder in the first degree. He urges that we should reduce the crime to manslaughter, or, at most, murder in the second degree. His argument is divided into two phases, (1) that defendant was tod intoxicated at the time of the killing to entertain an intent to kill, and (2) that defendant and his wife, his victim, had lived in conjugal bliss for fifteen years and there was no evidence justifying the conclusion of the trial judge that the killing was done with malice aforethought.

The evidence on the question of defendant’s intoxication at and before the time of the killing is conflicting. Several witnesses testified that while he had been drinking, and was not perfectly sober, he was not drunk. As one witness put it, “He wasn’t drunk. ... He had been drinking, yes, sir, but he xvasn’t plumb under the influence.” Defendant’s actions and conversation for several hours prior to and at the time of the killing were detailed with great particularity. This testimony is strong evidence that while he was mildly intoxicated, he was not so drunk as to preclude him from forming a specific intent to kill. Because some witnesses swore to a greater degree of intoxication is not sufficient to permit us to upset the implied finding that defendant was capable of and did entertain a specific intent to kill his wife when he shot her. (People v. Morales, 26 Cal. App. (2d) 442 [79 Pac. (2d) 771].)