Goulding

People v. Goulding

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 11·60 Cal. App. 542·213 P. 277
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 1923Crim. No. 937.California2,458 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of robbery. The case comes to this court on the clerk’s transcript and the reporters’s transcript only. In other words, no briefs on either side have been filed in the case. However, defendant’s counsel on oral argument has submitted several reasons for a reversal; the first of which being that the learned judge of the trial court erred in giving a certain instruction to the jury, which was requested by defendant. It is as follows:

No reason was assigned by appellant’s counsel, and none appears to this court, showing how or in what possible manner defendant was, or even might have been, prejudicially affected by the giving thereof. It is altogether in appellant’s favor—not a word nor a syllable which does not suggest the propriety, if not the absolute duty, of the jury to find the defendant not guilty, provided there be a single fact established by a preponderance of the evidence inconsistent with his guilt. It would seem unnecessary to point out that a defendant who offered such an instruction and which was given at his request, should be estopped to claim any damage to his case by reason of its having been submitted to the jury for its…

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.