Baca

People v. Baca

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 235·49 Cal. App. 587·193 P. 868
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 1920Crim. No. 504.California489 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nicol, J.

Defendants were charged by information of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, committed in the county of San Joaquin, and upon a trial they were convicted of the offense charged. They moved for a new trial, which motion was denied and judgment was pronounced that each defendant pay a fine of $360.

[1] Appellants contend that on account of the trial court’s refusal to give any instructions on self-defense they are entitled to have the judgment reversed and a new trial granted.

It appears from the evidence that the defendants entered the restaurant of the prosecuting witness Aurelio Torres, in the city of Stockton, at about 11:30 P. M., on the third day of November, 1919. The defendant Baca placed a nickel in the slot of the piano and no music followed. He complained about the failure of the piano to play and Aurelio Torres returned a nickel to Mm, and ordered him and his companion Angel Lopez out of the place. They remained inside and commenced to call Torres a robber, whereupon. Torres ejected them from the room. They returned, each with a knife in his hand, and the defendant Baca cut Torres on the right arm. The testimony of Baca shows that there was no claim whatever…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.