TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Gill

THE PEOPLE v. GILL

People v. Gill, 6 Cal. 637 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Murray
Citations
6 Cal. 637
Syllabus
The crime of murder is committed at the time when, the fatal blow is struck. Where an Act is passed between the time of the commission of the act and the death of the victim, defining the offence, and providing for its punishment, and providing that upon trials for crimes committed previous to its enactment, the party shall be tried by the laws in force at the time of the commission of the crime, the prisoner must be tried under the law in force when the violation of the law was committed.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The defendant was indicted for the crime of murder, charged to have been committed March 22, 1856. The case was tried September 8, 1856. The jury found a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and defendant appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Murray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The prisoner was indicted for murder, charged to have been committed on the 22d day of March, 1856, and was found “ guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.”

At the time of the killing, charged in the indictment, there was no such dime known to the law as murder in the second degree, and the party could only have been convicted of murder or manslaughter.

The Act defining the offence of which the prisoner is found guilty, was not passed until the 16th of April, 1856, and provides that, upon trials for crimes committed previous to its passage, the party shall be tried by the laws in force at the time of the commission of such crime.

It is supposed, however, that this case presents an exception to the rule thus established. The blow was given before, but the death ensued after, the passage of the last statute. The death must be made to relate back to the unlawful act which occasioned it, and as the party died in consequence of wounds received on a particular day, the day on which the act was committed, and not the one on which the result of the act was determined, is the day on which the murder is properly to be charged.

Besides this, although it is not absolutely necessary to state the precise day on which the killing took place, still, a conviction in a case like the present, where the party was called upon, by the indictment, to answer an offence under one statute, and was found guilty under another, would be bad, and ought to be arrested on motion.

The judgment is reversed, and the Court below directed to re-try the prisoner for murder.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1875–1876: 21879–1880: 11885–1886: 11891–1892: 21895–1896: 11897–1898: 11899–1900: 11901–1902: 11903–1904: 11911–1912: 11971–1972: 11979–1980: 12005–2006: 12013–2014: 12015–2016: 118752026peak 1875 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rose, S.127 A.3d 794 (Pa. 2015)
  2. Commonwealth v. Rose81 A.3d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)
  3. People v. Celis46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 139 (2006)
  4. Moore v. State40 S.W. 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)
  5. State v. Detter260 S.E.2d 567 (N.C. 1979)
  6. State v. Bowen16 Kan. 475 (1876)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rose, S.127 A.3d 794 (Pa. 2015)
  2. Commonwealth v. Rose81 A.3d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)
  3. People v. Celis46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 139 (2006)
  4. State v. Detter260 S.E.2d 567 (N.C. 1979)
  5. People v. Snipe25 Cal. App. 3d 742 (1972)
  6. Commonwealth v. Apkins146 S.W. 431 (Ky. Ct. App. 1912)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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