People v. Smith

Good Law
105 Cal. 676·1895 Cal. LEXIS 702·39 P. 38
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1895No. 21163California529 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

Upon an information accusing him of the crime of murder, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of five years; and has appealed from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. Counsel for appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence.

No particular in which the verdict is claimed to be contrary to the evidence is specified, either in the brief of counsel for appellant or .in the bill of exceptions; and, though the evidence is wholly circumstantial, it strongly tends to prove that the defendant committed the crime of which he was found guilty, and appears to be sufficient to justify the verdict.

2. It is contended that the court erred in refusing to give to the jury the following instruction:

“ The jury are directed that their opinion of the guilt of the defendant based upon the evidence in this case must nearly approach absolute certainty; that is, a condition in their minds so perfect, complete, and unconditional as to exclude the possibility of a doubt.”

This requested instruction is obviously erroneous, in that it requires a condition in the minds…

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.