Crawford v. People
| Decision Date | 01 March 1889 |
| Citation | 12 Colo. 290,20 P. 769 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Douglas county.
Crawford was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of 20 years. It appears that while he was engaged in a controversy and affray with one Gideon Pratt a shotgun in his hands was discharged killing the son of said Pratt.
The testimony of defendant, which is referred to in the opinion and which is in many respects corroborated by other evidence shows that said Pratt with his two sons called at defendant's cabin to see him about a pistol of defendant's that had previously disappeared, and the taking of which he attributed to one of the sons; that very profane and abusive language was used by said Pratt towards defendant in defendant's cabin; that defendant ordered Pratt out of the cabin and off his place; that Pratt went out of the cabin, but refused to leave the premises, saying he would not go off until the thing was settled; that violent language was used, especially by Pratt towards defendant, the most insulting and abusive epithets being heaped upon the latter; that they became engaged in a hand to hand contest each receiving and returning blows; that Pratt seized a couple of large stones, and defendant an adze, at one time, and these weapons were used menacingly during the affray; that defendant retreated into the cabin, Pratt calling him a 'g___d d___d old coward,' and a 'g___d d___ d old thief,' and daring him to come back, grinding his teeth, and telling him to get his gun and come out; that in the confusion and excitement, and further incensed by these additional epithets, defendant took a small shotgun, loaded with a single charge of fine shot, and went to the door, not designing, as he asserts, to take the life of Pratt, but with a view of defending himself and protecting his premises; the gun was, however, discharged, and the son was unintentionally killed. During nearly all of this time, and at the instant of the shooting, there was an intense degree of excitement and anger on the part of both Pratt and defendant.
Patterson & Thomas and William Dillon, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel Jones, Atty. Gen., for the People.
HELM, C.J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
There is some contrariety of judicial opinion with reference to the duty of a trial court in charging juries upon the different grades of felonious homicide. Certain authorities seem to hold that in such cases the law bearing upon all grades included in the indictment should be given, regardless of the evidence before the jury. But a careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the following rule is supported by a large preponderance of authority: When there is any evidence whatever tending to establish a certain statutory grade of criminal homicide, and the court refuses to charge the jury with reference thereto, error is committed; but, if there be a total absence of evidence relating to the particular grade disregarded, the charge cannot be successfully challenged on the ground of such omission. Whart. Crim. Law, § 3163 a; McNevins v. People, 61 Barb. 307; Lane v. Com., 59 Pa. St. 375; Reynolds v. State, 14 Tex. App 432; Baker v. People, 40 Mich. 411; King v. State, 71 Ala. 1; State v. Kirkland, 14 S.C. 230; Rutherford v. State, 16 Tex. App. 649; Moore v. State, 15 Tex. App. 1; Territory v. Gay, 2 Dak. 125, 2 N.W. 477; Territory v. Nichols, 3 N.M. ----, 2 P. 78; Adams v. State, 29 Ohio St. 412.
At the trial of the case at bar, an instruction was asked informing the jury that they might find the defendant guilty of either of the four grades into which murder and manslaughter are, by our statute, divided. The court, however, not only refused to give this instruction, but also failed to charge the jury in any manner concerning the two lesser grades of crime.
In cases where death ensues from poison, or where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mata-Medina v. People
...is entitled to an instruction thereon, regardless of how "incredible or unreasonable" his contention may be, Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290, 293, 20 P. 769, 770 (1889), or how "improbable, unreasonable or slight" it might be. People v. Garcia, 826 P.2d 1259, 1262 (Colo. 1992) (quoting Sha......
-
State v. Hoadley
...be successfully challenged on the ground of such omission. 494 N.W.2d at 387 (Amundson, J., dissenting) (citing Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290, 20 P. 769 (Colo.1889) (emphasis added)). If no evidence has been presented that would support a conviction on a lesser charge, then instructions ......
-
State v. Black
...criminally negligent homicide. The request was denied. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court, in reversing, held: In Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290, 20 P. 769 (1888), this court reversed the defendant's second degree murder conviction due to the trial court's refusal to instruct on volunt......
-
BROWN v. People of The State of Colo.
...is “some evidence, however slight,” People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375, 379 (Colo.1982), or “any evidence whatever,” Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290, 292, 20 P. 769, 770 (1889), “regardless of how ‘improbable, unreasonable, or slight’ it might be.” Mata-Medina v. People, 71 P.3d 973, 979 (Colo.2......