Bruggy

People v. Bruggy

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 1292·3 Cal. Unrep. 406·26 P. 756
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 22, 1891No. 20,706California2,238 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and is under sentence of death. He appeals from the judgment rendered against him, and from an order refusing a new trial. Pie makes the point that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The jury had before them persons who witnessed the homicide, and all its attendant circumstances. There was certainly some evidence which tended to show the guilt of the defendant as charged; and that being so, we are not warranted in saying that the *407 jury gave it improper weight, and should not have returned the verdict which they did.

It is further claimed that the instruction of the court was erroneous, which was in this language: “If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant, Bruggy, killed the deceased by shooting him, and that the shooting was done by Bruggy in resenting an attack on the part of the deceased to murder him, Bruggy, or an attempt on the part of the deceased to do great bodily harm to him, Bruggy, then in such case I instruct you the killing by Bruggy was justifiable, and you should find the defendant not guilty. The rule in such a case is this: What would a reasonable person—…

Dissenting Opinion

Paterson, J.

I think the instruction referred to in the opinion was erroneous. It ignores the fact that the defendant may have declined any further struggle immediately prior to the firing of the shot. Although he was the assailant, if he in good faith “endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed, the homicide was justifiable”: Pen. Code, sec. 197, subd. 3. Whether he did so decline further combat was a question of fact for the jury to determine on the evidence. It cannot be said that there was no evidence tending to show such a declination. The parties met right at the back door of the saloon, and the deceased immediately, grabbed the defendant by the arms, and pushed,him back several feet to the billiard-table, and was pushing him over against it when the fatal shot was fired. What occurred beyond what has been stated, or what, *410 if anything, was said by either party after they met at the rear door of the saloon, and before the shot was fired, does not appear in the evidence. If the defendant did decline further struggle, he was justified in shooting the deceased if he believed that he was in danger of receiving great bodily injury. This element was also…

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.