18 Cal. 635, People v. Sears

Citation:18 Cal. 635
Opinion Judge:BALDWIN, Judge
Party Name:THE PEOPLE v. SEARS
Attorney:James W. Coffroth and J. C. Goods, for Appellant, cited Wood's Dig. 297-8, sec. 362; Id. 333, sec. 30; People v. Hurley , 8 Cal. 392. Thos. H. Williams, Attorney General, for Respondent, cited 6-Cal. 636; 8 Id. 392.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. J. concurring.
Case Date:July 01, 1861
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 635

18 Cal. 635

THE PEOPLE

v.

SEARS

Supreme Court of California

July, 1861

Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Sacramento.

Indictment for assault with intent to commit murder upon one Martenot, by shooting at him with a pistol.

After the argument of the case had closed, and the Court had charged the jury, defendant asked the following instructions, to wit:

1. " If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant had a reasonable ground to believe, from the nature of the attack, that Martenot, the party injured, had a design to take his life, or commit a felony upon his person, he was justifiable in shooting, although it afterwards appeared that no felony was intended.

2. " If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant fired his pistol under the impression that great bodily injury was about to be immediately inflicted upon him, the shooting was no crime, but self-defense."

These instructions were refused, " for the reason that the rule of the Court required written instructions to be handed to the Court before the argument of the case commenced."

Defendant was convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to inflict bodily injury. He appeals.

COUNSEL:

James W. Coffroth and J. C. Goods, for Appellant, cited Wood's Dig. 297-8, sec. 362; Id. 333, sec. 30; People v. Hurley , 8 Cal. 392.

Thos. H. Williams, Attorney General, for Respondent, cited 6-Cal. 636; 8 Id. 392.

JUDGES: Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. J. concurring.

OPINION

BALDWIN, Judge

Page 636

Judgment affirmed. The Court had a right to make the rule for its own government and that of counsel; and we see nothing in this case to show any such unjust and injurious operation of it as to induce us to interfere, if we could do so in any case, to reverse a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP