People v. Burke

THOMPSON, J. The defendant was charged with murdering Harold Rannells. A jury convicted him of manslaughter. In an affray which occurred in Sacramento, September 9, 1944, between the defendant and Harold Rannells the latter was stabbed in the abdomen, as a result of which he died nine days later. From the judgment of conviction of manslaughter the defendant has appealed. The only contention of the defendant on appeal is that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence for the chief reason that there is a total lack of evidence indicating that the defendant stabbed the deceased or that the knife with which he was stabbed belonged to the defendant. The defendant denied that he stabbed the deceased, that he had a knife during the affray or that the knife which was found and received in evidence belonged to him. But the defendant was impeached by proof that he had been previously eon[531]victed of a felony, and the jury was entitled to disbelieve his testimony.

The judgment is adequately supported by the evidence.

About ten o’clock at night on September 9, 1944, the defendant, who had been in the merchant marine, and his wife, together with their friends, Louis Hill and his wife, were walking westerly on the northern sidewalk of K Street in Sacramento between 6th and 5th Streets. The defendant had been drinking intoxicating liquor to some extent, but he was not noticeably drunk. Two unidentified men, who were not witnesses at the trial, accosted the group and made disparaging remarks about the women. A fight between the defendant and those two men ensued on the sidewalk near the middle of the block. The deceased, Harold Rannells, took no part in that affray. There is no evidence that he even knew the defendant or his assailants. Rannells was then leaning against an automobile parked some distance away near the corner of Sixth and K Streets, from which point he watched the fight. The defendant was knocked down and badly bruised above his eyes and about his face. The defendant bled considerably as a result of the beating. Witnesses testified that they saw a knife or knives in the hands of the strangers during that brawl, but they said the knives were soon put in their pockets and that the defendant was not cut. The inference is that one of the strangers might have subsequently stabbed Rannells. There is no evidence to reasonably support that theory. That contingency is improbable. Evidently the deceased was not acquainted with any of the parties to that affray. He did not participate in that conflict. He stood twenty feet or more away from the location of the fight. No occasion was shown for the strangers to stab the deceased. At least it was the sole province of the jury to determine from the evidence whether it was the defendant who stabbed the deceased in the subsequent affray which occurred between them. The jury concluded that the defendant stabbed the deceased. The evidence supports that conclusion.