Patino

People v. Patino

Good Law
1908 Cal. App. LEXIS 24·9 Cal. App. 192·98 P. 199
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 1908Crim. No. 97.California501 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Taggart, J.

Information for grand larceny with charge of prior conviction of burglary. Four appeals are designated in the notice as follows: From the judgment, from the decision refusing to set aside the information, from the decision disallowing the demurrer, and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

But one question is presented: The refusal of the trial court to give, at defendant’s request, an instruction in the following language: “The jury are instructed that the defendant must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is fully established by legal evidence. The presumption of innocence prevails throughout the trial, and it is the duty of the jury, if possible, to reconcile the evidence with this presumption.” It is admitted by appellant that the first part of the instruction was substantially covered by the instruction given by the court in relation to reasonable doubt, but he contends that the last clause was not.

The defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that the law was as declared in the last clause, if they were not so informed by the other instructions given by the court. The jury were instructed in the language of section 1096 of the Penal…

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.