People v. Davis

Citation21 Cal.Rptr. 155,203 Cal.App.2d 18
Decision Date27 April 1962
Docket NumberCr. 3993
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Stanley D. Whitney, Alameda, for applellant (Under appointment of District Court of Appeal).

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Joseph I. Kelly, Deputies Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

DEVINE, Justice.

A second degree murder judgment and order denying motion for new trial are appealed. The killing occurred in a barroom. Decedent, Smith, who, apparently, was unknown to defendant, insulted women patrons of the bar, pushed or shoved defendant, who was sitting at the bar, perhaps three times, cursed defendant and threatened to kick him. Defendant remonstrated with decedent for cursing the women, asked decedent to 'leave us alone' and told decedent he might get hurt, cursing women as he was doing. Decedent took off his coat and draped it over his arm.

As the cursing went on, someone told defendant he didn't have to take that. Whether Smith had his right hand in his own pocket at the moment defendant stabbed him, or whether Smith was making a motion toward shoving defendant again, is a matter on which the witnesses do not agree. Defendant struck Smith with a knife with such force that it penetrated his breastbone, heart and aorta.

Appellant contended for self-defense, on the proposition that Smith had one hand in his pocket at the moment, was using the coat as a shield, was cursing defendant and threatening to kick him, and appellant feared Smith would pull out a knife or brass knuckles and attack him. However, no weapon was found on deceased, nor did defendant or anyone else see a weapon.

Immediately following the stabbing, defendant left the place with other patrons of the bar, whom he told to say that they did not see a knife. He asked one of them to wash the knife which he gave her and which had blood on it. He stated that he had cut Smith because Smith was cursing out two of the women patrons. When he learned that Smith was dead, appellant surrendered to the police, but he gave a false statement that he had no knife, but only a ring on his finger when he struck Smith.

Self-defense is a question of fact and requires in the actor a real fear of serious bodily injury and an appearance of danger of such injury which would arouse such fear in the mind of a reasonable man. (Pen.Code, § 198; People v. Ranson, 119 Cal.App.2d 380, 386-387, 259 P.2d 910.) There is nothing in the evidence in this case which would compel the conclusion of self-defense as a matter of law. In this, the case differs radically from the cases cited by appellant (People v. Collins, 189 Cal.App.2d 575, 11 Cal.Rptr. 504; People v. Toledo, 85 Cal.App.2d 577, 193 P.2d 953; People v. Salaz, 66 Cal.App. 173, 225 P. 777; People v. Estrada, 60 Cal.App. 477, 213 P. 67), because in each of those cases, except the Collins case, decedent was attacking defendant with a deadly weapon, and in the Collins case a violent sexual assault was being made on defendant by decedent; and in each of those cases the only competent and substantial evidence of killing of decedent by defendant was the same extra-judicial statement of defendant which carried, in close and immediate connection with the proof of the killing, circumstances of necessary self-defense. Where there is other evidence of criminality, it is the function of the trier of fact to determine which version is to be believed. (People v. Acosta...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Clark
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 31 March 1982
    ...Cal.2d 648, 655, 47 Cal.Rptr. 801, 408 P.2d 129; People v. Hall (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 480, 483, 28 Cal.Rptr. 164; People v. Davis (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 18, 20, 21 Cal.Rptr. 155.) Such is not invariably the case, however. "As an abstract proposition, it is of course conceivable that a case o......
  • Jackson v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 1 March 1965
    ...peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact. (People v. Wells (1938) 10 Cal.2d 610, 620-624, 76 P.2d 493; People v. Davis (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 18, 20, 21 Cal.Rptr. 155; People v. McAuliffe (1957) supar, 154 Cal.App.2d 332, 340, 316 P.2d 381; People v. Torres (1949) supra, 94 Cal.Ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT