TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Brown

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ANSON BROWN, Appellant

People v. Brown, 84 P. 670 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 27, 1906
Docket
No. Crim. No. 19.
Judges
Allen
Citations
84 P. 6703 Cal. App. 1781906 Cal. App. LEXIS 186
Cited by 8
Headnotes
Criminal Law—Murder—Instruction—Evidence.—In a prosecution for murder, the refusal of the court, at the request of the defendant, to instruct the jury as to its duty in the event it should determine that the death resulted from an accidental fall, or as to the evidence required to justify a verdict of manslaughter, is not error, when there is nothing in the record rendering such instructions applicable. Id.—Instruction to Acquit Unless Satisfied of Guilt of Murder-Refusal to Instruct as to Manslaughter.—In such a prosecution, where the court fully instructs the jury as to what constitutes murder both in the first and second degree, and directs it to acquit the defendant altogether unless it found him guilty of one of such offenses, the refusal to instruct as to what evidence would justify a verdict of manslaughter is without prejudice to the defendant, as it will be presumed that unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt of the higher offenses, they will perform their duty and acquit, even though they be satisfied that he is guilty of the lesser offense. Evidence—Refreshing Memory—Use of Memorandum.—Under section 2047 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a witness may refresh his memory from a memorandum written under his direction at a time when the facts were fresh in his memory, and he knew that the same were correctly stated in the writing. And the rule is the same where the witness has a copy of the original in his hands, which he has compared, and swears that the same is an exact copy of the original memorandum.
Summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order refusing a new trial. N. H. Conklin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Allen

*179 ALLEN, J.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial he appeals.

The court upon the trial charged the jury fully as to what constituted the crime of murder, both in the first and second degree, and directed the jury that unless it found the defendant guilty of one of such offenses to acquit him altogether. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain other instructions tendered by defendant pertinent to the issue. The first of these instructions related to the duty of the jury, in the event it should determine that death resulted from an accidental fall; the second related to the evidence required to justify a verdict of manslaughter. There is nothing in the record rendering either of these harges so tendered applicable, and were the contrary true .as to the second charge, nevertheless appellant could not be heard to complain. The natural presumption is that, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doub't of the defendant’s guilt of the higher offenses, they will perform their duty and acquit, even though they be satisfied that he is guilty of a lesser offense.

(People v. Lopez, 135 Cal. 25 , [ 66 Pac. 965 ] ;

People v. Clark, 145 Cal. 730 , [ 79 Pac. 434 ].)

There was no error in permitting a witness to refresh his memory from a memorandum written under his direction at •a time when the facts were fresh in his memory and he knew that the same were correctly stated in the writing. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2047;

Paige v. Carter, 64 Cal. 490 , [ 2 Pac. 260 ].) And the rule' is not different where the witness has a copy of the original in his hands, which he has compared, and swears that the same is an exact copy of the original memorandum.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Gray, P. J., concurred.

Smith, J., concurred in the judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1917: 11926: 11928: 11955: 11957: 21973: 11975: 119172026peak 1957 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gilliland v. Rhoads539 P.2d 1221 (Wyo. 1975)
  2. People v. Gardner305 P.2d 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  3. People v. Goldberg314 P.2d 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  4. Beecham v. Burns168 P. 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
  5. People v. Deckert246 P. 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)
  6. People v. Vera281 P.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Gilliland v. Rhoads539 P.2d 1221 (Wyo. 1975)
  2. State v. LaFreniere515 P.2d 76 (Mont. 1973)
  3. People v. Goldberg314 P.2d 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  4. People v. Gardner305 P.2d 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  5. People v. Vera281 P.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  6. People v. Ferugia273 P. 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Lopez, 66 P. 965 (Cal. 1901) 27
Paige v. Carter, 2 P. 260 (Cal. 1884) 9
Gutierrez v. Wege, 79 P. 449 (Cal. 1905) 6
People v. Clark, 79 P. 434 (Cal. 1905) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list